If a tree falls in the forest and it isn’t reported on by the New York Times does it make a sound? That’s the bottom line of a post by Michael Shellenberger at Forbes. He opens by pointing out that although the cost of solar panels to consumers has gone down the cost of solar energy has risen:
Between 2009 and 2017, the price of solar panels per watt declined by 75 percent while the price of wind turbines per watt declined by 50 percent.
And yet — during the same period — the price of electricity in places that deployed significant quantities of renewables increased dramatically.
Electricity prices increased by:
- 51 percent in Germany during its expansion of solar and wind energy from 2006 to 2016;
- 24 percent in California during its solar energy build-out from 2011 to 2017;
- over 100 percent in Denmark since 1995 when it began deploying renewables (mostly wind) in earnest.
I don’t think he’s being quite fair. What percentage of total electrical power is represented by wind and solar in those places? In California wind and solar combined furnish about 16% of California’s electricity while nearly two-thirds come from natural gas or hydro. In other words in all likelihood the cost of solar panels just isn’t that important in the big picture.
In addition the price per kwh of electricity in nuclear Illinois is 11.7 cents—that’s higher than the U. S. median price not lower. In California it’s 15.2 cents.
He continues by pointing out something that’s been noted here: as we deploy more solar and wind natural gas and hydro actually become more important not less.
He concludes that the popular misconception can be explained by press bias:
This is a problem of bias, not just energy illiteracy. Normally skeptical journalists routinely give renewables a pass. The reason isn’t because they don’t know how to report critically on energy — they do regularly when it comes to non-renewable energy sources — but rather because they don’t want to.
That could — and should — change. Reporters have an obligation to report accurately and fairly on all issues they cover, especially ones as important as energy and the environment.
While I have little doubt that journalists are biased, I don’t think that’s what’s going on. I’d need to dig into the figures but I think that the cost of electricity to the consumer depends less on underlying production than on government subsidies in various different forms. That’s not just true of solar and wind; it’s true of all energy.
In the case of solar there are both producer subsidies and consumer subsidies. China is subsidizing the production of solar panels to a degree nearly impossible to imagine. That results in lower costs for U. S. consumers. The federal government subsidizes consumers for installing solar.
All of those subsidies don’t actually reduce the cost of energy. That’s misdirection. They increase it.
I guess I’d start with the first figures. I assume that price per watt is measured under some ideal conditions, and probably don’t reflect reality. At best, they would be similar to have vehicle m.p.g. or emission standards are measure: there is a specific test supervised by the government that at least attempts to provide a potential reality (based upon assumptions of typical driving speed and conditions). But even those tests can be manipulated (see VW)
All that said, sun and wind are going to be highly variable, so I suspect there is a lot of false certainty in claiming that related technologies have become 50/75 percent more efficient.
By the way, I ran across some figures that said the Netherlands was one of the major purchasers of Illinois coal. When the price of coal falls so low, it becomes more competitive than natural gas.
NASA has announced that it has developed a Next-Gen low earth orbit (LEO) satellite that will cost as little as $50,000 to place in orbit. The first test of the new satellite is pending appropriation of $47 Billion for the extension cord.
The cost of panels isn’t the most important factor, just as the cost of uranium isn’t the most important factor in determining the ultimate cost and nuclear power. Installation, the grid connections, transformers, maintenance, the networking to make it all work is not cheap. I suspect those costs are much higher than for a large, centralized natural gas plant.
What are the estimates on savings in health care costs for the increased use of renewables? Environmental costs?
Steve
It depends so much on your assumptions it’s hard for me to imagine an estimate I’d believe. For example, the mining and processing of rare earth elements produces a lot of rather deadly pollution. Indium and tellurium are used in the production of solar panels. Health improvements in one part of the world may well be offset by health hazards elsewhere.
“For example, the mining and processing of rare earth elements produces a lot of rather deadly pollution.”
In highly populated areas? Don’t think so. The particulate matter from coal, just to use an example, spreads into densely peopled areas. Look at China’s cities. But, if we are just going to ignore positive and negative externalities, then we may as well go back to the 50s and having people die from massive air pollution. That was cheapest when we had no air pollution regulations.
Steve
In highly populated areas?
In areas populated by “people” who are politically invisible. If we can’t hear them cry, they were never even there.
https://www.lynascorp.com/Pages/Mt-Weld-Concentration-Plant.aspx
The two closest cities, per Wiki, are Laverton (population 340) and Leonora (population 556).
There is no “zero” pollution option AFAICT, so you try to minimize impact. However, if you are happier having a coal plant right outside of Dallas, as an example, pumping particulate over millions, go for it. I would rather try to figure costs and impacts rather than whine about some people being invisible, especially since it seems like those millions of people are invisible to you.
Steve
just fwiw, a graphic from Eurelectric.org showing a breakdown of the average EU area electric bill in 2014. Seems taxes and “policy costs” explain why Danes pay so much.
The unsolvable problem with both wind and solar is intermittency. Each kw of either wind or solar requires a kw of “backup” power. For technical engineering reasons, the backup is usually a gas-fueled turbine. The turbine needs to idle even when solar/wind are operable because the switch from solar/wind to turbine needs to be seamless and quick.
Since solar/wind typically have capacity factors of 10% (Texas whole state less than 9%), the turbine actually provide typically 90% of the electrical power. In a few rate locales, like the coast of Scotland, wind capacity factors can rise to 35%. But the turbine still provides 65% of the total electricity. Solar almost never gets above 25% even in southern deserts.
Proponents of renewables never include the cost of the backups. But it is evident that anyone installing solar/wind is actually buying two complete power systems. The renewable is merely an unnecessary add-on to the turbine.
The intermittency it self becomes a serious issue when wind/solar reach about 5% of the total generating power. The switching time is never instantaneous, and serious instabilities are introduced into the distribution grid, which threaten blackouts.
All told, people pushing solar/wind are engaged in criminal fraud and rent seeking. If they were really concerned about carbon dioxide, and not receiving subsidies, they would be pushing nuclear.
Fraud and rent-seeking are certainly factors but I think that far more of those pressing for solar and wind are Luddites or engaging in wishful thinking (or both).
I’ve made the points you’ve made in your comment for more than 50 years. IMO they’re not sudden revelations but obvious but there’s an even larger problem. Pressing for austerity will never catch on. From a psychological and therefore political standpoint efficiency and conservation are losers. As it’s been put an environmentalist is someone who already has a cabin in the woods.
You make a perfectly rational and warranted, if obvious, point steve. What are the real total costs? I believe Dave weighed in with the notion that he wouldn’t believe an analysis he saw. Me either. Too many advocates.
And BSykes observes some valid technical consideration. So it’s a pickle. But the person who observed that the nuclear option, IMHO, lays waste to the solar and wind missionaries. France can do it (France!) so can we. And I’m about to build a house near a nuke plant, so don’t give me the NIMBY crap.
We can deal with our technical issues if we try. But like so many things, we can’t deal with our ideology.