Solar Cheapest Energy in 2020 Predicted in 2006

27 thoughts on “Solar Cheapest Energy in 2020 Predicted in 2006”

1. If anything, you advocating how unstable solar is, and how much cheaper than solar nuclear is. now you’re trying to catch up with the wave.

2. The only problem with Brian solar prediction is that it did not happen. May never happen.

3. On the one hand we say solar is the cheapest energy source, on the other hand Europe is going to literally freeze to death this coming winter.

   Maybe there is more than one variable that needs optimiztion?

4. As others somewhat more than imply:
   Any claim that solar or wind is cheap has to cheat by ignoring the cost of providing storage or backup from some other energy source to provide energy when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing.

   • Generators trip and severe thunderstorms take transmission assets offline. Because of these and similar problems fast-start gas turbines already exist. And since they back fossil fuel power plants they shouldn’t have a problem backing renewable.

     • Oh, come on. Nuclear, for instance, has something like a 98% up time, with most of the down time scheduled. Solar and wind are more like 50-75% down time, both have unscheduled variations, and most of the variation in wind isn’t scheduled.

       At some point, a difference in degree IS a difference in kind.

     • Yeah thunderstorms are very selective and only kill the non-renewable transmission lines. It is easy for thunderstorms to pick them out as they are the black cable ones (the renewable transmission lines being rainbow colored).

5. Five attempts in a row to post a substantive comment, and not one worked. I’m on the verge of giving up on the comments here if you don’t fix this.

6. I’d echo the complaints: You can’t compare solar to conventional power on a nameplate basis, you have to account for the pathetic and unreliable duty cycle, and the additional costs that imposes. Solar is far from the cheapest source of power today on any honest basis, and unless there is some massive breakthrough that makes storage practically free, has no potential to be the cheapest. Solar could literally be free, and it would still be expensive under any honest accounting.

   Maybe we’re approaching the point at which solar power satellites could be viable, though, since they don’t have the duty cycle problem, and so don’t require storage. I’d love to see more efforts in that direction.

   • “Solar could literally be free, and it would still be expensive under any honest accounting.”

     See fore example Germany this coming winter.

7. I’d echo the complaints: You can’t compare solar to conventional power on a nameplate basis, you have to account for the pathetic and unreliable duty cycle, and the additional costs that imposes. Solar is far from the cheapest source of power today on any honest basis, and unless there is some massive breakthrough that makes storage practically free, has no potential to be the cheapest. Solar could literally be free, and it would still be expensive under any honest accounting.

   Maybe we’re approaching the point at which solar power satellites could be viable, though, since they don’t have the duty cycle problem, and so don’t require storage. I’d love to see more efforts in that direction.

8. I’d echo the complaints: You can’t compare solar to conventional power on a nameplate basis, you have to account for the pathetic and unreliable duty cycle, and the additional costs that imposes. Solar is far from the cheapest source of power today on any honest basis, and unless there is some massive breakthrough that makes storage practically free, has no potential to be the cheapest. Solar could literally be free, and it would still be expensive under any honest accounting.

   Maybe we’re approaching the point at which solar power satellites could be viable, though, since they don’t have the duty cycle problem, and so don’t require storage. I’d love to see more efforts in that direction.

9. I’d echo the complaints: You can’t compare solar to conventional power on a nameplate basis, you have to account for the pathetic and unreliable duty cycle, and the additional costs that imposes. Solar is far from the cheapest source of power today on any honest basis, and unless there is some massive breakthrough that makes storage practically free, has no potential to be the cheapest. Solar could literally be free, and it would still be expensive under any honest accounting.

   Maybe we’re approaching the point at which solar power satellites could be viable, though, since they don’t have the duty cycle problem, and so don’t require storage. I’d love to see more efforts in that direction.

10. Cover arable farm land with giant, unrecyclable, unreliable solar > nice reliable NG and nuclear.

    This kind of ridiculous boondoggling of something as fundamentally necessary as energy policy is why our civilization will collapse. Germany is getting a taste of the new, improved future right now, and through the winter.

    I hear FIREWOOD is a hot commodity over there, after 7 years of “investing in renewables” Good Job guys.

    • People used to burn animal waste so ain’t progress wonderful.

      • Could be worse, as long as the Germans aren’t burning people then burning firewood and animal waste is a step in the right direction.

        One day Germany will industrialize and modernize and provide reliable heat and electricity. It seems impossible for a country to stay 3rd world forever.

    • “is getting a taste of the new, improved future right now, and through the winter.”

      this might be more a political (including distribution of financing), less a technical, implication
      if so, there’s a more wider view necessary to this, especially with historical, international and prospective involvements

11. The claim of cheapest energy is disingenuous unless compared with consideration to reliability and continuity. Solar doesn’t produce electricity when the sun doesn’t shine, so therefore is reliant on other forms of power generation or storage. Coal / nuclear electricity does not have this reliance.

    I am yet to see a sensible assessment that takes this significant factor into account, and consider that the output and reliability of energy generation is critical in making the claim of ‘cheapest’.

12. Solar and wind should be cheap because they are unreliable. There isn’t a lot of demand for unreliable power. What makes renewables expensive to consumers is the cost of standby generation required to make the system reliable. It’s an apples to oranges comparison to say solar is cheaper than fossil fuels. They are fundamentally different products.

    • Solar was much more expensive when I made the prediction in 2006

      • Solar Manufacturing is dependent upon Fossil Fuel. The silicon is just crushed quarts thrown into huge coal fired furnaces that literally burn away the impurities.

        That takes a lot of coal and spews out a lot of CO2.

    • Try telling the germans that gas is more reliable….

      • The Germans spent 1 Trillion Euro on Solar and Wind. They built out 158% of their theoretical peak usage. And, today it probably produces 8% -10% of their usage. (Although, they use creative accounting to show it is almost 20%)

        Because you cannot backup Solar and Wind with Nuclear, they decided Coal was their only good option. Unfortunately, Coal Power Plants are like cars. They pollute most during start up and shut down. So, almost all of their solar and wind emissions saving has been eaten up by the additional coal emissions.

        • the states community should have invested into offshore wind power turbines and providing people there investment options (like U.S. did with onshore wind power)

13. When you have 5 acres of Solar in Las Vegas you get 12 hours of power a day.

    For 24 hour power, you build 5 acres of solar and 12 hours of battery backup.
    But, you can’t charge your batteries while you are using the power. So, you build an
    additional 5 acres of panels to charge your batteries.

    But, if you want the same amount of power in Indianapolis, you build 10 acres of solar, 12 hours of backup and 10 acres of solar to charge your batteries.

    How did you calculate your solar cost? 5 acres in Vegas? 10 acres plus 12 hours of battery backup? Or, 20 acres in Indianapolis and 12 hours of battery backup?

    • Actually, you get ~6 hours of high solar electricity production, and 6 hours of low to almost zero production, followed by 12 hours of complete zero production.
      Meantime the AC peak demand is at the afternoon and evening when the production is low.
      So if you have a 1GW-peak solar station, it will generate 6GWh/day in the summer and 3GWh/day in the winter. To use it 24 hours you need to store ~3GWh to have close to 100% (still need Gas turbines for the few rainy days), and you will need to dump extra power in the summer. So in LV the 1GW-Peak + 3GWh storage is equal to 0.2GW gas turbines.

14. With this 80% of new generation capacity being solar/wind, as clearly illustrated [/s] by the stonk plots, has actual generation remained flat, increased, or decreased? There have been numerous nuke plant closures in the first world during this time while China added 38 GW of coal in 2020, 33 GW of coal in 2021 (per a lazy google query). Did global generation increase through the ongoing economic contraction precipitated by the hypochondria hysterics of 2020?

Comments are closed.