Wind power prices now lower than the cost of natural gas

In the US, it's cheaper to build and operate wind farms than buy fossil fuels.

Read the whole story

 

[tigas]

Why does the cheapest energy production method need credits in the first place? Profitable business should not need handouts from government coffers.

Funny how the current fossil energy producers not having to pay for the pollution and carbon they produce, pushing those externalities to all of us, isn't considered a handout...

 

[C.M. Allen]

Except that, once you actually factor in the cost of the environmental damage done by NG (to say nothing of coal, 'clean' or otherwise), Wind and Solar have ALWAYS been the better, cheaper choice.

Humanity has accrued a multi-trillion dollar debt, one we've built up over more than a century of reckless disregard, and that bill is coming due in a big way.

Sure. But that's not to say that NG isn't better than coal, and is therefore a useful waystation on the road to fully renewable energy supplies.

We're going to have a mix for a long, long time. Rather than focus on a single, "perfect" solution, we should focus on ensuring that the mix minimizes carbon emissions, even if it doesn't completely eliminate them.

And keeping NG around 'for a long, long time' is a recipe for disaster. It needs to be dumped ASAP. And since we have the means, the technology, the resources, and the manpower to do so, the only reason to drag our heels on taking that critical step is GREED.

But then, humanity has always excelled at selling its future for a handful of beans today.

 

[wagnerrp]

The cost comparison shown is mis-leading. Natural gas has high availability, and statistically plant outages are not correlated Wind power has intermittency problem and production is correlated in a region. Wind with no storage is not a practical option, fossil fuel does not need storage.

Technically, fossil fuel does need storage, and that storage (and transportation infrastructure) has been significant trouble in the past.

 

[SixDegrees]

Except that, once you actually factor in the cost of the environmental damage done by NG (to say nothing of coal, 'clean' or otherwise), Wind and Solar have ALWAYS been the better, cheaper choice.

Humanity has accrued a multi-trillion dollar debt, one we've built up over more than a century of reckless disregard, and that bill is coming due in a big way.

Sure. But that's not to say that NG isn't better than coal, and is therefore a useful waystation on the road to fully renewable energy supplies.

We're going to have a mix for a long, long time. Rather than focus on a single, "perfect" solution, we should focus on ensuring that the mix minimizes carbon emissions, even if it doesn't completely eliminate them.

And keeping NG around 'for a long, long time' is a recipe for disaster. It needs to be dumped ASAP. And since we have the means, the technology, the resources, and the manpower to do so, the only reason to drag our heels on taking that critical step is GREED.

But then, humanity has always excelled at selling its future for a handful of beans today.

It's already being supplanted. Call it a disaster if you like, but it's a smaller disaster than continuing to use coal. It buys us time to more fully switch over to renewable sources.

In other words, it's a realistic stopgap. If you're going to insist that we ONLY implement a solution that's perfect, then we'll be waiting for eternity to run out.

 

[Tom the Melaniephile]

Note that regions with more renewables (California, Germany) have higher retail electricity prices.

Texas has ~20% renewables based on 2018 total electricity produced, has a very competitive market, low retail and wholesale costs - and the vast majority of projects in planning and construction are wind and solar.

Despite a glut of cheap natural gas in Texas, plans for building new NG is a distant 3rd place, and losing ground to battery projects (on a GW basis)

Texas is also a very isolated electricity market. The links to outside grids are token, and most are to SPP, which has higher wind penetration than Texas.

 

[geocolumbus]

The Tarif Recession will dramatically reduce demand for electricity and availability of capital. There will be a period of around 3-4 years of few projects being started as the coal and nukes continue to age out. Around 2026 there will be another renewables boom as those old plants are replaced.

 

[Tom the Melaniephile]

The cost comparison shown is mis-leading. Natural gas has high availability, and statistically plant outages are not correlated Wind power has intermittency problem and production is correlated in a region. Wind with no storage is not a practical option, fossil fuel does not need storage.

You're not paying attention.

Lets say you get 100% of your power from natural gas.

It's now cheaper to build a brand new wind farm and keep the existing natural gas plant as backup for when the wind isn't blowing.

Building a new wind farm is literally cheaper than the natural gas it takes to run the NG plant.

 

[numerobis]

The cost comparison shown is mis-leading. Natural gas has high availability, and statistically plant outages are not correlated Wind power has intermittency problem and production is correlated in a region. Wind with no storage is not a practical option, fossil fuel does not need storage.

You have to compare (wind+storage) vs (wind+natural-gas) vs. (fossil + no storage). Part of the reason NG has become more popular is that in general it is better at variable-load operation, and renewables have increased demand of load leveling.

Read the article again. It is comparing fossil to fossil + wind. Under current tax law, fossil + wind is cheaper. Even if the fossil fuel plant is already built!

Note that regions with more renewables (California, Germany) have higher retail electricity prices. Germany and California also have ability to import fossil/nuclear power for load leveling regions. Also note that China, which is leader in manufacturing wind turbines and leads in capacity, is building ~100 GW or more new coal generation.

China is building more coal mostly because corruption: its coal fleet has a fairly low capacity factor already.

Germany and California have efficiency programs funded by retail rates. The utilities lose revenue with greater efficiency, so those places figured if the utility managed to improve efficiency it should be rewarded by increasing rates to cover half the loss of revenue.

If wind was cheaper overall (high system reliability) then it will be adopted.

And indeed, wind has been adopted.

 

[Vipre77]

I looked at my utility bill about two weeks ago and noticed that my $/therm on the gas portion of the bill is nearly double what it was compared to the same month last year. So what has been driving up costs on the gas prices so much? Has there been a big push to stop fracking which had dropped prices so significantly and I didn't hear about it?

 

[storme]

...it is amazing (to me) how consistently the Watergate line ("Follow the money") and the line in the sports agent movie ("Show me the money!") explain so much in our world.

Years ago...on this very board perhaps, I wondered why the Republican Party's resistance to modern science's notions about climate change was so strong, and what the origin of that resistance was.
Follow the money indeed.

Global warming disinformation efforts have been much more widespread than a single congress-critter. There has been a large disinformation effort financed by libertarian ideologues and fossil fuel interests. The largest of those efforts is via the Heartland Institute, the *same* group that told America that cigarettes are safe, and don't cause cancer. The run disinformation efforts for industry.


“In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.”
Source: ”Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... al-effort/

 

[numerobis]

Except that, once you actually factor in the cost of the environmental damage done by NG (to say nothing of coal, 'clean' or otherwise), Wind and Solar have ALWAYS been the better, cheaper choice.

Humanity has accrued a multi-trillion dollar debt, one we've built up over more than a century of reckless disregard, and that bill is coming due in a big way.

Sure. But that's not to say that NG isn't better than coal, and is therefore a useful waystation on the road to fully renewable energy supplies.

We're going to have a mix for a long, long time. Rather than focus on a single, "perfect" solution, we should focus on ensuring that the mix minimizes carbon emissions, even if it doesn't completely eliminate them.

And keeping NG around 'for a long, long time' is a recipe for disaster. It needs to be dumped ASAP. And since we have the means, the technology, the resources, and the manpower to do so, the only reason to drag our heels on taking that critical step is GREED.

But then, humanity has always excelled at selling its future for a handful of beans today.

It's already being supplanted. Call it a disaster if you like, but it's a smaller disaster than continuing to use coal. It buys us time to more fully switch over to renewable sources.

In other words, it's a realistic stopgap. If you're going to insist that we ONLY implement a solution that's perfect, then we'll be waiting for eternity to run out.

That argument is outdated.

We’ve got the technology today to remove most of the natural gas use from our grid. We can cook and heat with electricity.

We can make electricity with solar, wind, hydro, biomass, geothermal, etc. For peak supply we have batteries starting to be on par with gas.

We can power vehicles with batteries or catenary wires.

Industrial uses are harder to deal with but a fair amount is really about methane being a hydrogen source; that we can do with electrolysis.

Expanded natural gas infrastructure isn’t needed. Exception: gas from waste. That might provide 5% of what we currently use, so we only need to expand the production facilities. Meanwhile, shut down the coal and stop expanding the gas.

 

[storme]

This is false. Source for this?

Without taking energy storage into account the writer is just telling half the story, the problem is not energy but storage. Still nice to see that they are improving the hardware.

The painting is on the wall. At some point in the future wind will be cheaper but not yet. At the moment it's only cheaper for the site operator. Not for the grid operator nor for the consumer. That's the story not told.

The report even states that other costs are not included and references another report for theses costs which is from 2016 and needs to be updated.

Costs such as reserve, integration, capacity, curtailment, inertia for wind in the US add at least 15$/MWh on top of the LCOE/PPA price. A cost which is absorbed by the grid operator and transferred to the consumer. A cost which is almost zero for CCGT as an example.

Here's what the IEA says: “Based on a thorough assessment of flexibility options currently available for VRE integration, a major finding of this publication is that large shares of variable renewable energy (VRE) (up to 45% in annual generation) can be integrated without significantly increasing power system costs in the long run.”

http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/GIVAR2014sum.pdf

The people who deal with this problem day-in, day-out, are the utility executives, here's what they have to say:

“Why utilities are more confident than ever about renewable energy growth”
http://www.utilitydive.com/news/why-uti ... th/440492/

And finally, the UtilityCo's are moving rapidly into the renewable-baseload business:

“NextEra shrugs off concerns about grid reliability and PV case”
http://www.rechargenews.com/transition/ ... nd-pv-case

“Southern Power looks to bring 'baseload renewables' in US”
http://www.rechargenews.com/transition/ ... bles-in-us

 

[numerobis]

If contract dollars per kwh were the only thing that mattered, the answer would be easy.

Sure, but these numbers seem to be saying it's cheaper to have wind + existing NG on standby than to just burn the NG all the time.

If you ignore asset cost, and that higher CF NG might be a bit cheaper, and others systemic costs, maybe. But like I said.

Back at accusing people of ignoring what they’re explicitly calculating, I see.

Over and over, someone prices out a system and you say they’re ignoring systemic costs.

It’s clear you have no idea how to price anything, you just learned the word and found it suitably vague to use when throwing FUD at people.

I did not accuse anybody of anything. I just stated a fact. Sorry if that fact bothers you. If you disagree with the statement, please say so.

The costs stated regarding wind competitiveness, the headline subject matter, in the article of subject are generation costs only.

After this long discussing energy, you want to claim ignorance of what LCOE is, or of how a PPA is priced?

 

[Vipre77]

I looked at my utility bill about two weeks ago and noticed that my $/therm on the gas portion of the bill is nearly double what it was compared to the same month last year. So what has been driving up costs on the gas prices so much? Has there been a big push to stop fracking which had dropped prices so significantly and I didn't hear about it?

Wholesale gas costs are near historic lows across most of the country. Guessing you started using a lot more gas somehow.

No, I checked that. My overall usage of gas was nearly the same. The cost per unit has nearly doubled. My electricity usage went up significantly because we were in the process of clearing out our house, painting, etc. to put it up for sale. We had a lot people going in an out of the house in very hot weather, so our air-conditioning was running a lot more than usual. But my gas usage was about the same.

 

[numerobis]

I looked at my utility bill about two weeks ago and noticed that my $/therm on the gas portion of the bill is nearly double what it was compared to the same month last year. So what has been driving up costs on the gas prices so much? Has there been a big push to stop fracking which had dropped prices so significantly and I didn't hear about it?

You can look up the rates at your utility and see what they were at different dates. If they jacked them up a lot, it would be on your local gas utility and their regulatory agency.

 

[biohazard918]

Except that, once you actually factor in the cost of the environmental damage done by NG (to say nothing of coal, 'clean' or otherwise), Wind and Solar have ALWAYS been the better, cheaper choice.

Humanity has accrued a multi-trillion dollar debt, one we've built up over more than a century of reckless disregard, and that bill is coming due in a big way.

Sure. But that's not to say that NG isn't better than coal, and is therefore a useful waystation on the road to fully renewable energy supplies.

We're going to have a mix for a long, long time. Rather than focus on a single, "perfect" solution, we should focus on ensuring that the mix minimizes carbon emissions, even if it doesn't completely eliminate them.

And keeping NG around 'for a long, long time' is a recipe for disaster. It needs to be dumped ASAP. And since we have the means, the technology, the resources, and the manpower to do so, the only reason to drag our heels on taking that critical step is GREED.

But then, humanity has always excelled at selling its future for a handful of beans today.

It's already being supplanted. Call it a disaster if you like, but it's a smaller disaster than continuing to use coal. It buys us time to more fully switch over to renewable sources.

In other words, it's a realistic stopgap. If you're going to insist that we ONLY implement a solution that's perfect, then we'll be waiting for eternity to run out.

That argument is outdated.

We’ve got the technology today to remove most of the natural gas use from our grid. We can cook and heat with electricity.

We can make electricity with solar, wind, hydro, biomass, geothermal, etc. For peak supply we have batteries starting to be on par with gas.

We can power vehicles with batteries or catenary wires.

Industrial uses are harder to deal with but a fair amount is really about methane being a hydrogen source; that we can do with electrolysis.

Expanded natural gas infrastructure isn’t needed. Exception: gas from waste. That might provide 5% of what we currently use, so we only need to expand the production facilities. Meanwhile, shut down the coal and stop expanding the gas.

And your argument is naive. Do you expect to just wave a magic wand and have solar and wind power appear? It takes time and resources to do every thing. It will take decades to fully switch over to renewables and in that time natural gas is by far the best stopgap option we have.

Edit: It is a mater of priorities. Coal and oil should be eliminated first.

 

[Frennzy]

My company just closed a design/build project for a brand new 480MW wind installation. Foundations to be poured soonish, in order to lock in those tax credits I believe.

The pace is pretty fast and furious right now for renewables (we also do solar, storage, T&D, and even O&M) and it's great to be a part of it.

 

[NovoRei]

Page 74 and reference section of the original report:
http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/publications/the ... pdate.html

Those results are actual utilities costs and not opinion of utilities. Utilities which may import baseload energy to maintain grid reliability, or use current baseload installations to maintain reliability which is only possible in regions where there's no increase in energy demand, or those who need to install new baseload or storage if the former two options are not available. It's an average.

BTW, the IEA report (which also needs to be updated) you linked states that there's an increase in grid cost when adding variable renewable energy (it didn't consider all the variables of the UKERC report). To minimize the increase you need a correct mix of other energies. VRE by itself is not the correct answer. Nothing new.

Again, the site owner cost does not reflect the final cost for the consumer. Wind/etc is something good if it has the perspective of lower costs in the future (which has been projected since ~2000 ), or if it's a complementary source to solar(cloud and night)/hydro(drought) and oil/gas(price hikes and availability).

This is false. Source for this?

Without taking energy storage into account the writer is just telling half the story, the problem is not energy but storage. Still nice to see that they are improving the hardware.

The painting is on the wall. At some point in the future wind will be cheaper but not yet. At the moment it's only cheaper for the site operator. Not for the grid operator nor for the consumer. That's the story not told.

The report even states that other costs are not included and references another report for theses costs which is from 2016 and needs to be updated.

Costs such as reserve, integration, capacity, curtailment, inertia for wind in the US add at least 15$/MWh on top of the LCOE/PPA price. A cost which is absorbed by the grid operator and transferred to the consumer. A cost which is almost zero for CCGT as an example.

Here's what the IEA says: “Based on a thorough assessment of flexibility options currently available for VRE integration, a major finding of this publication is that large shares of variable renewable energy (VRE) (up to 45% in annual generation) can be integrated without significantly increasing power system costs in the long run.”

http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/GIVAR2014sum.pdf

The people who deal with this problem day-in, day-out, are the utility executives, here's what they have to say:

“Why utilities are more confident than ever about renewable energy growth”
http://www.utilitydive.com/news/why-uti ... th/440492/

And finally, the UtilityCo's are moving rapidly into the renewable-baseload business:

“NextEra shrugs off concerns about grid reliability and PV case”
http://www.rechargenews.com/transition/ ... nd-pv-case

“Southern Power looks to bring 'baseload renewables' in US”
http://www.rechargenews.com/transition/ ... bles-in-us

 

[Vipre77]

Here's an excerpt from my most recent bill. Same average temp. Almost identical usage (therms/day) on the gas (0.67/day last year vs. 0.69/day this year). But the gas $/day went from $0.35/day last year to $0.63/day this year. That's crasy. I mean, it's still a very small percentage of my overall bill compared to my electricity costs, but I found it strange that the cost/therm on the gas had increased so much.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1c2y-fF5teKW_qglQr-fmMyVBXA843RQi

In case anyone is wondering whythe total amount due doesn't add up right, it's because we're on a level billing plan so we get billed the same amount every month. They calculate it based on our historical average usage for the year and then just divide the costs evenly every month. So, some months we use more than the average, some less.

Oh, and I live in Milwaukee, in case anyone was wondering about that too.

 

[numerobis]

Except that, once you actually factor in the cost of the environmental damage done by NG (to say nothing of coal, 'clean' or otherwise), Wind and Solar have ALWAYS been the better, cheaper choice.

Humanity has accrued a multi-trillion dollar debt, one we've built up over more than a century of reckless disregard, and that bill is coming due in a big way.

Sure. But that's not to say that NG isn't better than coal, and is therefore a useful waystation on the road to fully renewable energy supplies.

We're going to have a mix for a long, long time. Rather than focus on a single, "perfect" solution, we should focus on ensuring that the mix minimizes carbon emissions, even if it doesn't completely eliminate them.

And keeping NG around 'for a long, long time' is a recipe for disaster. It needs to be dumped ASAP. And since we have the means, the technology, the resources, and the manpower to do so, the only reason to drag our heels on taking that critical step is GREED.

But then, humanity has always excelled at selling its future for a handful of beans today.

It's already being supplanted. Call it a disaster if you like, but it's a smaller disaster than continuing to use coal. It buys us time to more fully switch over to renewable sources.

In other words, it's a realistic stopgap. If you're going to insist that we ONLY implement a solution that's perfect, then we'll be waiting for eternity to run out.

That argument is outdated.

We’ve got the technology today to remove most of the natural gas use from our grid. We can cook and heat with electricity.

We can make electricity with solar, wind, hydro, biomass, geothermal, etc. For peak supply we have batteries starting to be on par with gas.

We can power vehicles with batteries or catenary wires.

Industrial uses are harder to deal with but a fair amount is really about methane being a hydrogen source; that we can do with electrolysis.

Expanded natural gas infrastructure isn’t needed. Exception: gas from waste. That might provide 5% of what we currently use, so we only need to expand the production facilities. Meanwhile, shut down the coal and stop expanding the gas.

And your argument is naive. Do you expect to just wave a magic wand and have solar and wind power appear? It takes time and resources to do every thing. It will take decades to fully switch over to renewables and in that time natural gas is by far the best stopgap option we have.

Edit: It is a mater of priorities. Coal and oil should be eliminated first.

It *took* decades during which natural gas was a bridge fuel, until wind and solar got cheap enough and production capacity increased enough.

Past tense.

 

[Tom the Melaniephile]

I just stated a fact.an unsupported claim, which I keep repeating without basis or support

FTFY.

 

[Tom the Melaniephile]

You mean...wind? Solar? Things we can do, right now, today?

It would be moderately challenging to get the US grid beyond 70% wind + solar. It gets significantly more challenging/expensive beyond about 90%.

Wind + solar + geothermal + hydro + existing nuke + additional HVDC transmission corridors is perfectly viable today and can be implemented at very reasonable costs, likely cheaper than the "status quo" of mostly fossil.

 

[bvz_1]

Why does the cheapest energy production method need credits in the first place? Profitable business should not need handouts from government coffers.

Because the point isn't to create a profitable business. The point is to reduce greenhouse gases (and other pollutants) that are causing very real, extremely dangerous, and costly damage to the only home we have.

If we create a profitable business along the way, great.* But it isn't the primary point.


*Technically it actually IS the point only in as much as a profitable business is more likely to continue the move away from fossil fuels.

 

[Tom the Melaniephile]

Germany's grid management costs soar as high winds overstrain capacity at much lower penetration levels.;

Ah, yes. Germany. For some reason (Perhaps the fact fossil interests still control the energy supply) - fossil apologists always use Germany when trying to tear down just how cost effective renewables have become.

Germany got in early when costs were high, has poor solar resource and sacrificed their clean nukes so that they could keep propping up the coal barons.

Germany is an example of fossils running the show.

 

[Tom the Melaniephile]

Here's an excerpt from my most recent bill. Same average temp. Almost identical usage (therms/day) on the gas (0.67/day last year vs. 0.69/day this year). But the gas $/day went from $0.35/day last year to $0.63/day this year. That's crasy. I mean, it's still a very small percentage of my overall bill compared to my electricity costs, but I found it strange that the cost/therm on the gas had increased so much.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1c2y-fF5teKW_qglQr-fmMyVBXA843RQi

In case anyone is wondering whythe total amount due doesn't add up right, it's because we're on a level billing plan so we get billed the same amount every month. They calculate it based on our historical average usage for the year and then just divide the costs evenly every month. So, some months we use more than the average, some less.

Oh, and I live in Milwaukee, in case anyone was wondering about that too.

Enbridge blew up one of their main natural gas pipelines in Kentucky, which is linked to a main pipeline to Wisconsin. This would significantly reduce your access to Pennsylvania/Marcellus shale natural gas. I expect there is local supply constraint and price spiking.

Natural gas is only as reliable as the supply and the pipeline companies - who started badly neglecting maintenance over the past couple decades.

 

[SixDegrees]

Here's an excerpt from my most recent bill. Same average temp. Almost identical usage (therms/day) on the gas (0.67/day last year vs. 0.69/day this year). But the gas $/day went from $0.35/day last year to $0.63/day this year. That's crasy. I mean, it's still a very small percentage of my overall bill compared to my electricity costs, but I found it strange that the cost/therm on the gas had increased so much.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1c2y-fF5teKW_qglQr-fmMyVBXA843RQi

In case anyone is wondering whythe total amount due doesn't add up right, it's because we're on a level billing plan so we get billed the same amount every month. They calculate it based on our historical average usage for the year and then just divide the costs evenly every month. So, some months we use more than the average, some less.

Oh, and I live in Milwaukee, in case anyone was wondering about that too.

Enbridge blew up one of their main natural gas pipelines in Kentucky, which is linked to a main pipeline to Wisconsin. This would significantly reduce your access to Pennsylvania/Marcellus shale natural gas. I expect there is local supply constraint and price spiking.

Natural gas is only as reliable as the supply and the pipeline companies - who started badly neglecting maintenance over the past couple decades.

Enbridge is also likely about to preside over a catastrophic oil spill into the Great Lakes when its Line 5 under the Straits of Mackinac collapses and pours vast amounts of oil into both Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, while spending years refusing to do routine maintenance because it costs "too much."

This company is built on slime. If there was ever a poster child begging for government takeover of industry, it's Enbridge.

 

[Haravikk]

Taking bets now on Trump suddenly pulling all renewable subsidies and/or slapping massive tariffs on renewable energy…


Wish I was joking too, but it's what happened here in the UK; the moment renewables started proving their viability with subsidies, the subsidies were axed, now most renewables are barely seeing investment, and installation of solar panels has dropped by something like 98%.

Yet our government pledged to be carbon neutral by 2050, and pretends that this makes us a world leader somehow (even though Norway has pledged to be carbon neutral by 2035 and made that pledge years ago, as well as actually being on track to meet it).

 

[Veritas super omens]

Taking bets now on Trump suddenly pulling all renewable subsidies and/or slapping massive tariffs on renewable energy…


Wish I was joking too, but it's what happened here in the UK; the moment renewables started proving their viability with subsidies, the subsidies were axed, now most renewables are barely seeing investment, and installation of solar panels has dropped by something like 98%.

Yet our government pledged to be carbon neutral by 2050, and pretends that this makes us a world leader somehow (even though Norway has pledged to be carbon neutral by 2035 and made that pledge years ago, as well as actually being on track to meet it).

Norwegians can be a bit reticent on the braggadocio.

 

[SailRick]

Why does the cheapest energy production method need credits in the first place? Profitable business should not need handouts from government coffers.

In the U.S., oil has been subsidized non-stop since 1918, coal since 1932
And there are numerous ways the government assists and facilitates fossil fuels, including 10s of $Billions per year in military protection. And that doesn't include the $6 Trillion or so spent on 3 wars in the MidEast.

Why is a mature profitable industry still getting subsidies after a century?

 

[Zelog]

Why does the cheapest energy production method need credits in the first place? Profitable business should not need handouts from government coffers.

To even the field with other types of power generation, which also get considerable benefits in some form or another.

So could we do an apples-apples comparison then, what is the actual cost (subsidies included) for the different sources of energy?

 

[numerobis]

I wrote to my representatives again urging a re-think on these tax credits expiring:

https://www.house.gov/representatives/f ... esentative

My personal view is we need to keep working hard on renewables AND help those displaced as the industry shifts. Much still to be done.

There really is no point in continuing the tax credits.

The purpose of tax credits and Govt subsidies is to get companies/people to work on a technology that is expensive and/or risky but has long term benefits to society.

If wind is cheaper than natural gas then those subsidies are no longer needed and the money should be spent on the next technology. Those tax credits have done their job.

Once a technology has matured enough to stand on its own the only thing that continuing tax credits and subsidies will do is line the pocket of corporations and the people that own them.

I’m in with that, as long as subsidies for natural gas also get removed.

 

[ralphnobody]

You mean...wind? Solar? Things we can do, right now, today?

It would be moderately challenging to get the US grid beyond 70% wind + solar. It gets significantly more challenging/expensive beyond about 90%.

Wind + solar + geothermal + hydro + existing nuke + additional HVDC transmission corridors is perfectly viable today and can be implemented at very reasonable costs, likely cheaper than the "status quo" of mostly fossil.

Aside from cost, the security benefits of having multiple sources of energy shouldn't be underestimated.

In the ideal world, we would further encourage individual homes and businesses to contribute and store energy locally in tandem with centralized energy sources. This would make the US power grid much more resistant to attacks.