“The cost of large-scale solar projects has fallen by one third in the last five years and big solar now competes with wind energy in the solar-rich south-west of the United States, according to new research.

The study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory entitled “Utility-Scale Solar 2012: An Empirical Analysis of Project Cost, Performance, and Pricing Trends in the United States” – says the cost of solar is still falling and contracts for some solar projects are being struck as low as $50/MWh (including a 30 per cent federal tax credit).”

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/big-solar-now-competing-with-wind-energy-on-costs-75962

That’s a penny more than the 2011, 2012 average for wind at $0.04/kWh.

Tease out the 30% PTC for each and solar is 7.5 cents, wind 5.7 cents.

Half or less the cost of new nuclear or coal. Squeezing hard on natural gas.

$5.7 trillion? Likely a low estimate. It’s time to kick fossil fuels to the curb.

$5.7 Trillion is just the low hanging fruit. http://www.oceanenergy.co

It’s not just whether solar and wind are cheap enough to force existing generation off the grid. It’s also about what we will use to replace existing generation as it wears out.

Wind, solar and geothermal are cheaper than new coal and new nuclear. We’ve got a lot of replacement ahead of us (tempered by increased efficiency dropping demand).

It’s now pretty much impossible to build a new coal plant due to the CCS requirement.

Nuclear is expensive. And one more meltdown could result in massive demands to close all nuclear, investment risk is very high.

Natural gas, in a combined cycle plant, is not expensive but it is subject to fluctuating gas prices and a potential carbon price.

There are some very large amounts of investment ahead and it looks to me that wind and solar are going to get the lion’s share. Bring more affordable storage to market and things will get very interesting.

Falling NG prices would have made everyone (most everyone) bid lower in order to sell.

Five cents may not be competitive with paid off hydro, coal and nuclear (from the most efficient reactors). Coal and nuclear have a lot of external costs and historical subsidies, but they aren’t being charged against selling price so they don’t count in the market.

Take a look at the graph at the bottom. Wind is inside the blue range, but it’s toward the top.

Where wind is competitive is in new capacity. It beats everything including, possibly, NGCC.

Now when you look at a PTC credit of 2c/kWh you could say half their money comes from the subsidies. However after 10 years the 2c/kWh goes away and they are left with 20 more years of only getting 2c/kWh total.

Now look at coal or nuclear power which is bought at old fashioned prices of 10-30c/kWh. It is mind boggling this Citi financial expert would say non subsidized onshore wind is not competitive! What is really going on here?

Offshore wind is likely to be a player by 2020. The closeness to the densely populated East Coast and daytime output, even in the less sunny winter, is likely to make it a pretty popular energy source.

I’m suspecting a wind-solar one-two punch.

Subsidies? Why not fight for them? Why sit back and let fossil fuels and nuclear get massive public support, making their prices artificially lower and not ask for a bit of the same?

When fossil fuels and nuclear start standing on their own two feet then we should talk about dropping wind and solar subsidies.

I just can’t see a scenario in which solar doesn’t dominate everything by 2020.

The DOE reports uncertainty over the PTC led to lower tax equity and debt commitments, effectively turning the “end-of-2013 PC construction deadline into an end-of-2014 commercial operations deadline.” State renewable energy targets have helped offset this federal uncertainty, but have only supported 3-5 GW worth of new additions annually,…

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/08/06/rollercoaster-ride-continues-for-us-wind-energy-industry-doe-report/

The more interesting comparison lies between new wind and old coal plants. The latter are decrepit as well as highly polluting. If the utilities can get away without major refurbishment, they will try to run these dinosaurs as long as possible. But if refurbishment costs are high, or the EPA comes up with tough standards, then wind plus some storage begins to look attractive.

Citi thinks that onshore wind is economic in Britain without subsidy. The joke is that England is one of the few places in the world you can´t actually build them, as a consequence of strong local planning controls combined with a lack of any tax incentives for local government to approve wind farms. (Google ¨UK single business rate¨.) Scotland is different. Also France, where EDF can steamroller any local opposition.

The pretense of objectivity shows when the “profitability” of some hugely profitable RE technology like wind power is questioned.

It’s time to repeat over and over to these closet defenders of the fossil fuel status quo that, as far as 100% renewable energy for human civilization, TINA (There Is No Alternative if we want to survive).

http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif

Here we have some body saying there are lots of good opportunities for PV. I like that and agree. Also that it would not burden the grid. I also like that and agree. Then he goes on to say unsubsidized land based wind is not profitable in the USA. What?! So then I begin to wonder just what his connections are that allow him to spew BS.