The issue of coal and natural gas still being built is primarily an issue of there not being an adequate price on pollution (i.e. we are still subsidizing them with our health and well being!). The focus needs to be on getting that price put on global warming pollution, not bashing the cleanest technologies we have in order to try to get funding for a new solar technology that won’t bear fruit anytime soon, if ever.

I agree that the growth needs to go from strong to exponential, but I think it will if we continue deploying the adequate solar and wind technologies we have. The prices drop with that. The price of solar PV modules has dropped 80% since 2008, the price of wind turbines 29%. And they continue to drop fast as technologies improve and the markets grow and mature. http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/06/solar-pv-module-prices-have-fallen-80-since-2008-wind-turbines-29/

In all seriousness, we don’t really leave this forum to people who come here with the intention of confusing others about the true cost of burning fossil fuels… acting as if minor subsidies for wind and solar come close to the massive subsidies for coal and natural gas that we have given for years and continue to give.

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/07/energy-subsidies-clean-energy-subsidies-fossil-fuel-subsidies/

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/07/oil-subsidies-natural-gas-subsidies/

In other words, stop confusing others about the cost of subsidies or move on. I think your intentions are good, but selling your product by bashing excellent clean energy products and trends is not the way to go.

Let’s see what else I can find….

“$2.50/Wp capital cost is approximately the 2012 cost. At historical rates of improvement, the $1.50/W cost may occur by 2020 at best.”

Germany has been installing utility scale solar for under $2/watt. Their average cost (no subsidies) is $2/watt.

The UK recently installed a large array for $1.59/watt. No subsidies.

Non-subsidized rooftop in parts of Australia is down to $2/watt.

I’ll be very surprised if $1.50/W isn’t common by 2015. It looks like we might be only nine cents away right now.

—

“Even in the best desert locations, the resulting ground based PV electricity will still cost $0.12/kWh which will not be competitive without subsidy in 2020 except in high priced markets.”

Recently we’ve seen solar PPAs for around $0.10/kWh – pre-subsidy price. Palo Alto signed a non-inflating 30 year PPA for solar electricity at ten cents, pre-subsidy. A 20 year PPA was signed in New Mexico for under eleven cents, pre-subsidy.

—

“Utility scale PV in the desert needs huge additional investment in electricity distribution and backup generation that is not factored into the normal PV $/Wp estimates for construction cost and also has environmental and political problems.

Actually ‘desert’ solar gets built close to existing transmission. Not off in the boonies where it is necessary to run long wires.”

The 10 cent stuff I gave you right above? Includes transmission, real estate, profits, everything. It’s a selling price.

Neither solar nor wind need backup generation. We already have enough dispatchable generation, storage and load-shifting available to incorporate 40% or more wind and solar on our grids. That is plenty to retire coal.

—

Now, good luck with your idea. But you are going to turn people off by making false claims.

All the major energy agencies and economic agencies like the OECD and the world bank have aggressive 450 plans. None say how the policy objectives can be met. China is still building coal fired power plants at over one a week and while they will introduce scrubbers to clean up the pollution, they won’t implement CCS. China is also building more wind, solar and nuclear than anyone else.

My point is simple: wind and solar are not solving the CO2 problem, and no credible agency expects they will by 2050. This does not mean drop wind and solar, but it does mean be realistic in your expectations.

There is a common politically correct perspective that anyone who questions the sanctity of wind and solar must be in the hands of the devil fossil fuel camp. The world is not that black and white.

BTW StratoSolar is not in space. Read again or watch the video.

In the meantime, I would suggest that you aren’t going to win friends and build support by misrepresenting what is happening with other renewables.

You will win only by having a better idea, not trying to tear down other technologies with misrepresentations.

And don’t forget that we pick up the health costs from coal pollution which makes coal our most expensive way to generate electricity.

Over the first 15 years of these energy sources’ subsidies, oil and gas got 5 times what renewables got (in 2010 dollars) and nuclear energy got 10 times as much. (Much of the renewable subsidies went to corn farms.)

Between 1918 and 2009 oil and gas received average annual subsidies of $4.86 billion.

Between 1947 and 1999 nuclear received average annual subsidies of $3.50 billion.

Between 1980 and 2009 biofuel received average annual subsidies of $1.08 billion.

Between 1994 and 2009 renewables received average annual subsidies of $0.37 billion.

http://www.dblinvestors.com/documents/What-Would-Jefferson-Do-Final-Version.pdf

Renewables received 92% less per year than oil and gas, 89% less than nuclear and 76% less than biofuels. And for many fewer years.

How have those subsidies paid off? In the last 30 or so years the cost of wind-electricity has dropped from $0.38/kWh to $0.05/kWh. A 7x drop. The price of solar panels has fallen from around $100/watt to just above $0.50/watt. Almost a 200x drop.

As we all know the price of fossil fuels and nuclear just keeps going up. (Aside from a short term drop in the price of natural gas.)
—

I agree that the world is on a path to climate disaster. If we don’t drastically cut our use of fossil fuels and do it rapidly we are in for some very bad times. Times that will last for a long, long time.

To minimize our pain we need to install the least expensive, safest and quickest to bring on line alternatives to fossil fuels and those are renewables.
—

It’s not at all clear that economic growth will at swamp wind and solar growth. You overlook efficiency which is cutting use, allowing growth without increasing demand.

And if economic growth might swamp wind and solar growth it would absolutely swamp new nuclear or coal growth. Those plants take far too long to bring on line to even consider as solutions.

Emerging economies are going straight to renewables. They aren’t building coal plants.

China has reduced their nuclear plans by one third.

Now, you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t watch your video. You don’t know enough about energy to be worth a look.

If the world as a whole could agree to spend twice as much on energy say 16% of GDP as against today’s 8%, then maybe we could ramp to a scale necessary to reduce CO2.

However in a world where the emerging economies economic growth is fueled with cheap energy, and almost all energy growth is in those countries, this is not going to happen. China is easily becoming the world leader in wind and solar and even has fast growing nuclear. However, because their overall growth is so large, this is a diminishing percentage of their overall energy production.

I firmly believe the world is on a path to climate disaster. I don’t think current technology and policy us going to even get us to a declining CO2 level because economic growth will swamp even robust growth in current wind and solar.

I outline this in as simple a way as I can in the video at http://www.stratosolar.com

Yes, Germans are paying a modest surcharge in order to green their grids. What are they receiving in return?

Solar on the grid reduced the wholesale price of electricity by approximately EUR 5 billion in 2012.

http://qualenergia.it/sites/default/files/articolo-doc/RA-January-2013_Germany-Wholesale-Power-Report-3.pdf

Germany is saving EUR 8 billion a year in fossil fuel import costs right now

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/17/germany-1-trillion-projected-fossil-fuel-import-savings-from-energiewende/#SeSqsbWCrdY4Pvbe.99

Germans know what they are doing. They are making smart moves in getting nuclear and fossil fuel generation off their grids. It won’t happen overnight and it will require some up front investment. But in the long run they will end up with much cheaper and safer power.

Germany’s current FiT levels are high because that causes more activity in the industry and gets installation infrastructure built up quickly. Those initial high tariffs will largely be offset by savings in gas peaker plant costs.

As the amount of solar increases on the grid the FiTs are being reduced.

http://www.euractiv.com/climate-environment/german-green-power-tariff-rise-4-news-515403

In recent years Germany invested over $150B in very expensive solar. They way the FIT works, German consumers pay the price for this over the next twenty years. This article shows that cost is significant. 5.3cents/kWh in 2013 and rising every year. A 20.3B euro bill in 2013.

Overall this was a good thing for everyone but the German consumer because it broke the cartel that had been keeping polysilicon prices high, and resulted in todays much lower PV panel prices. Unfortunately PV still has a way to go to be cost competitive without subsidy, even in Sunny expensive electricity markets like California.

No, over half of the cost of solar is not subsidy. That’s a crock.

Germany is saving far more in energy/electricity costs than they are spending to get renewable installed.

You are extremely ill-informed or an intentional liar.

Edmund, I’m not going through your post line by line. It’s just a pile of crap.