Mountaineer wrote:Is the solar line on the cost graph based on local (e.g. rooftop panels) or central (which would include transmission power losses and infrastructure investment)? Just curious.
The latter. An all-inclusive price.
Mountaineer wrote:For what it's worth, I applaud a goal of lower cost energy and a cleaner environment. I do not so much applaud the presuppositions in the linked article, e.g. CO2 is bad and solar/wind will make a (significant) contribution to reduce "climate change".
Forget about climate change. It's irrelevant; this is a market-based phenomenon. But still, I can't help but be reminded of this cartoon I saw recently...
Maddy wrote:When something claims to be cheaper, but it's not being done on any meaningful scale
Read the paper! These economic realities are extremely new which is why there isn't a huge installed base yet, but now it
is being done on a meaningful scale. 63% of new capacity last year was renewable!
All around the USA, coal-burners are being replaced with renewables as they age due to simple economics. Energy generation infrastructure doesn't turn on a dime; these things take a while. But the trajectory is clearly in favor of renewable electricity sources, especially if and when natural gas wholesale prices rise again. The market is historically good for gas right now, and that's the only reason why it's still competitive with wind.
And that's just in the USA. All around Europe, the energy market has been quietly transformed over the last few decades, unbeknownst to us:
http://www.investmentu.com/article/deta ... 0pziVe5hFI
And that was as of 2012!