Wind – 4 cents in 2011 and 2012. DOE’s “2012 Wind Technologies Market Report”
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/2012_wind_technologies_market_report.pdf
​Wind may have dropped to 2.1 cents in 2013. That number is not yet confirmed, but does come from
a staff scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
​.

Solar – 5 cents recently in the SW​
​
​.​
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory entitled
​ ​
“Utility-Sca
​​
le Solar 2012: An Empirical Analysis of Project Cost, Performance, and Pricing Trends in the United States”
http://emp.lbl.gov/publications/utility-scale-solar-2012-empirical-analysis-project-cost-performance-and-pricing-trends
​
​Now, those prices include subsidies. Both wind and solar are elgible for 2.3 cents tax credit (not a direct payment) for each kWh produced during their first 10 years of operation. Since PPAs are generally for 20 years (sometimes 25) that makes the average subsidy over the life of a PPA a bit less than 1.5 cents. (I’m using 1.5 rather than 1.15 because getting your money early has financial value over getting it later.)

Neither utility wind nor solar get direct payment subsidies. Never have. ​
​Fossil fuels, especially oil, get tax breaks and sweetheart land leases that other businesses would love to get.

​And that doesn’t account for the money we spend for the military to keep “our” oil supplies flowing.

​Nor does it account for the many billions we spend each year to deal with the external costs of coal.

Just think how much better off our economy and national debt would be if we hadn’t encountered a $9 trillion bill for our three oil wars. And if we have that ~ half trillion we spend dealing with the side effects of coal.​

​

Solar and wind are getting cheaper. Coal plants are being closed (about 200 of them) because it would be too expensive to clean up their smokestacks. Battery storage is starting to displace natural gas peaker plants.

The carbon footprint of EVs (batteries) will shrink because the electricity used to manufacture them will become cleaner.

Then, here’s how Lomborg finished his article –

“The electric car might be great in a couple of decades but as a way to tackle global warming now it does virtually nothing. The real challenge is to get green energy that is cheaper than fossil fuels. That requires heavy investment in green research and development. Spending instead on subsidizing electric cars is putting the cart before the horse, and an inconvenient and expensive cart at that.”

That’s wrong in so many ways. Green energy is now cheaper than new coal. And it’s cheaper than old coal if we include the external costs of burning coal. (And taxpayers pay for those external costs.)

Since wind and solar are already cheaper, without subsidies, than coal there’s no need for additional research. Wind seems to have dropped under four cents per kWh and the ~eight cent cost of solar is largely due to installation inefficiencies. More research would be great, but it’s not necessary.

Subsidizing electric cars creates a market. And a growing market (which is happening) means that car manufacturers will get serious about developing the best, most competitive car they can build. EV and PHEV sales are growing faster than hybrid sales grew in their first years. We’re likely short years (3?, 5?) from where EVs and PHEVs will be competitive without subsidies. Subsidizes will have done their work in short years.

Finally, the electric car is great, fabulous, right now. The Tesla S is an incredible car. No need to wait 20 years for a great EV.

Lomberg makes a living by being the little boy who cries “No wolf!” in support of fossil fuels. Fact is, the EV wolf is already chowing down on Granny.

For his battery-production carbon numbers, Weiss relies primarily on an outlier study from theJournal of Industrial Ecology. Its estimates of carbon footprint from lithium-ion battery production are far higher than previous studies, and it has been pilloried in the blogosphere for numerous errors too arcane to enumerate here.

A 2010 study in the journal of the American Chemical Society, on the other hand, concludes that the environmental impact of the battery is “relatively small.” It estimates that battery production adds about 15 percent to the driving emissions of an electric car.

A 2012 study for the California Air Resources Board puts the number at 26 percent, assuming the California powerplant mix. But if you adjust to the dirtier national U.S. grid powerplant mix, driving emissions go up. So the percentage share of battery production goes down, also to about 15 percent.”

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1084440_does-the-tesla-model-s-electric-car-pollute-more-than-an-suv/page-3

Lomborg appears to start with his conclusion – “Renewables and EVs sometime in the future, maybe” – and then looks for numbers which support his position.

Lomborg published his opinion piece in 2013 and updated it later. There was contrary data to what he used publicly available well before he published.

Lomborg’s point is that their is a substantial energy cost to producing these vehicles that is often overlooked. Some gas powered vehicles may still have fewer overall emissions than EV’s when MPG and regional electricity sources are considered. But, since the lifetime of an EV is probably greater than 100,000, the net CO2 emissions are less than most gas powered vehicles, but the CO2 savings don’t start on the first day.

We do know who Lomborg is, he is someone bring some vital cost-benefit analysis to environmental issues.

I don’t think anyone calls EVs “zero emission” in terms of lifetime CO2 footprint anymore than claiming that wind and solar have a zero lifetime carbon footprint.

EVs are zero emission when driving down the road. And to the extent that fossil fuels are used in manufacturing and generating electricity there is a carbon footprint. But that footprint is less than that of a gasmobile and dropping as we green our grids.

Look, we know who Lomborg is and we understand the game he plays.

He’s staked out a spot in space that no one else wants, or would be willing to take, and he uses that to buy his dinner.

What makes you think Rupert would allow that? The WSJ has become Fox Business News and Spin.

Give him a chance. =-P

And the tax on electricity long predates wind or solar becoming anywhere near mainstream enough to be considered in politics – even in Europe. They actually predate me I believe.

I agree that government “messing” with the economy is a bad thing, and for that reason I generally do not support subsidies even if I support the technology they subsidize. But, with that understood, we also have to consider the externalities that companies can pass of onto others and account for those costs. I much prefer taxing the negative behavior because when done right, it actually has the potential to increase efficiency of the economy (lowering waste and pollution but then again it is rarely done right) to subsidizing the good behavior, but rewarding good gets better press than punishing bad.

Ignoring the uninformed comment about “useless wind and solar” – I also disagree that the electric rates are holding them back. The higher cost of electricity is offset by the higher cost of gasoline/diesel. The thing that’s really “holding them back” is very good public transportation. When people drive less, it’s much harder to justify buying a more efficient vehicle.

I’m not nearly as radical as you might think, but when you take such an extreme in your argument correcting the fallacies makes my post seem to be at the other extreme…

What a joke. With wind and solar lowering the cost of electricity and reducing the amount of CO2 along with other pollutants it takes a real joker to call them “useless”.

The ‘tax’ on electricity in Europe is a there to support wind and solar. When you mess with an economy like the soviets did, you almost always end up with more waste and pollution.

Given all that, its pretty obvious that electric cars are likely going to be an actual good idea in Europe soon. The one thing that could hold them back is artificially high electric rates, in order to pay for useless wind and solar.

And if they aren’t a win in Europe, why are some countries investing quite heavily in Quick charging infrastructure? And why is Tesla, an electric car company having incredible success in the US, expanding to the European market?