Cheapest source of new electricity gen by country

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

This LCOE so no subsidies! https://nawindpower.com/bnef-onshore-wind-is-cheapest-source-of-new-build-generation

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

On 4/30/2020 at 9:11 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

This LCOE so no subsidies! https://nawindpower.com/bnef-onshore-wind-is-cheapest-source-of-new-build-generation

That depends heavily on where, exactly that onshore wind is located and how, exactly, you calculate the cost.  The true cost includes several things:

1) Cost of the generator
2) Cost of the fossil-fuel backup needed when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine.
3) Cost of battery storage
4) Cost of transmission lines

I've yet to see an LCOE calculation that included all of these, which makes LCOE useless. 

An example: Iowa and Kansas are often tauted as having incredible wind resources.  They do, but where are you going to sell that wind power?  Iowa and Kansas have minimal electricity demand.  Places in the world that do have demand usually lack strong solar or wind resources. 

So I roll my eyes at this.  There's no such thing as a meaningful LCOE for an entire country. There are only LCOEs for individual projects and everything required to bring that power to market. 

I'm growing tired of explaining this.  Anyone who bothers studying the electrical system should quickly intuit it. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

5 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

That depends heavily on where, exactly that onshore wind is located and how, exactly, you calculate the cost.  The true cost includes several things:

1) Cost of the generator
2) Cost of the fossil-fuel backup needed when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine.
3) Cost of battery storage
4) Cost of transmission lines

I've yet to see an LCOE calculation that included all of these, which makes LCOE useless. 

An example: Iowa and Kansas are often tauted as having incredible wind resources.  They do, but where are you going to sell that wind power?  Iowa and Kansas have minimal electricity demand.  Places in the world that do have demand usually lack strong solar or wind resources. 

So I roll my eyes at this.  There's no such thing as a meaningful LCOE for an entire country. There are only LCOEs for individual projects and everything required to bring that power to market. 

I'm growing tired of explaining this.  Anyone who bothers studying the electrical system should quickly intuit it. 

[1] LCOE measures the all-in expense of producing one MWh of electricity from a new project, taking into account costs of development, construction and equipment, financing, feedstock, operation and maintenance.

Fossil fuels require a great deal of infrastructure including piping and transmission.

[BradleyPNW + 282]

Offshore wind and solar PV used to be more expensive than nuclear. I think both of those will beat onshore wind in the USA during this decade. 

One massive advantage of offshore wind turbines is manufacturing and transportation. You don't have the logistics problems of carrying extremely long blades on roads. Another advantage is more consistent wind patterns over the ocean. But the ability to build and site very large turbines is the kicker that will help them beat onshore. 

Solar PV is definitely going to shock energy models in the 2020s. Tri-State is getting solar around $0.023/kWh from a portfolio of solar PV suppliers in Colorado and New Mexico. https://www.tristate.coop/renewable-energy

Environmentalists probably worry about mining the materials to manufacture wind and solar but I don't care. I want cheap electricity because it supports liberal democracy. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

On 5/6/2020 at 12:32 PM, BradleyPNW said:

Offshore wind and solar PV used to be more expensive than nuclear. I think both of those will beat onshore wind in the USA during this decade. 

One massive advantage of offshore wind turbines is manufacturing and transportation. You don't have the logistics problems of carrying extremely long blades on roads. Another advantage is more consistent wind patterns over the ocean. But the ability to build and site very large turbines is the kicker that will help them beat onshore. 

Solar PV is definitely going to shock energy models in the 2020s. Tri-State is getting solar around $0.023/kWh from a portfolio of solar PV suppliers in Colorado and New Mexico. https://www.tristate.coop/renewable-energy

Environmentalists probably worry about mining the materials to manufacture wind and solar but I don't care. I want cheap electricity because it supports liberal democracy. 

I want cheap, consistent, reliable energy. I also want to minimize environmental impact. All energy production has environmental consequences, and expensive energy also has environmental consequences. This means we need to make tradeoffs. In my opinion, A rapid move away from fossil fuels to green electricity is our best approach to optimizing in effectively all of these dimensions. Before Fukushima, I was an adherent of nuclear power, but I now feel that wind and solar are better choices, at least until nuclear fusion becomes practical. Thus, the optimal approach is to commit to wind and solar, and then try to minimize the environmental impact they cause. True environmentalists should strongly support this based on a simple argument: A MWh of renewable energy has a smaller environmental impact than a MWh of fossil energy, so every argument an environmentalist makes against renewable energy is hurting the environment. The primary goal must  be to kill fossil energy, with a secondary goal of reducing the environmental impact of green energy ("picking the greenest energy").

[pisstol + 48]

1 hour ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

I want cheap, consistent, reliable energy. I also want to minimize environmental impact. All energy production has environmental consequences, and expensive energy also has environmental consequences. This means we need to make tradeoffs. In my opinion, A rapid move away from fossil fuels to green electricity is our best approach to optimizing in effectively all of these dimensions. Before Fukushima, I was an adherent of nuclear power, but I now feel that wind and solar are better choices, at least until nuclear fusion becomes practical. Thus, the optimal approach is to commit to wind and solar, and then try to minimize the environmental impact they cause. True environmentalists should strongly support this based on a simple argument: A MWh of renewable energy has a smaller environmental impact than a MWh of fossil energy, so every argument an environmentalist makes against renewable energy is hurting the environment. The primary goal must  be to kill fossil energy, with a secondary goal of reducing the environmental impact of green energy ("picking the greenest energy").

Maybe I am making too much of your words, but I don't agree that "the primary goal must be to kill fossil energy". The environmental externalities or external costs have to be accurately priced. You touched on the fact that pricing them can't be perfect when you referred to Fukushima. I took some environmental classes in the early 1990's where I learned the expression. It is still used. Here is a link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Possible_solutions

If you already know all this, I apologize for talking in a condescending manner. But you have already judged that fossil fuels have the highest externalities. I don't know. The government should exercise constant vigilance to reassess and reprice externalities. Maybe the future holds some other surprise that nobody knows about yet like Fukushima.

 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

1 hour ago, pisstol said:

Maybe I am making too much of your words, but I don't agree that "the primary goal must be to kill fossil energy". The environmental externalities or external costs have to be accurately priced. You touched on the fact that pricing them can't be perfect when you referred to Fukushima. I took some environmental classes in the early 1990's where I learned the expression. It is still used. Here is a link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Possible_solutions

If you already know all this, I apologize for talking in a condescending manner. But you have already judged that fossil fuels have the highest externalities. I don't know. The government should exercise constant vigilance to reassess and reprice externalities. Maybe the future holds some other surprise that nobody knows about yet like Fukushima.

 

Thanks for the link. You are not being condescending at all, but in this case I was already familiar with the concepts. I take as given that increases on CO2 in the atmosphere have such dire environmental consequences that they overwhelm any localized environmental effects. If so, then wind and solar will almost always win for any project that has a lower carbon life cycle cost per MWh than the carbon per-MWh life cycle cost of the most efficient fossil fuel project. But this has become such a one-sided evaluation that (while it should still be calculated) it is no longer worth mentioning in a short discussion.  The main carbon cost of wind and solar is the carbon cost of the energy used in manufacturing, transport, and installation of the systems, and, ironically, that carbon cost comes from the fossil fuels used. but as the energy transition proceeds, that carbon cost goes down.

[BradleyPNW + 282]

Personally, I'm not concerned about climate change or CO2/methane emissions -- within reason, I don't obnoxiously roll coal in a 4x4. I think warming and change can be beneficial though I understand my opinion is contrary to the commonly held opinion of experts in the subject. Consequently, my opinion counts for squat. Nevertheless, that's how I feel. 

Even so, the low cost advantage of wind and solar is so obvious I can't deny it. I could deny it ten years ago but not today. After Trump gets the boot the Democrats can design programs to build and install solar/wind as part of a COVID economic revitalization plan and I'll cheer them on. All advanced economies should do it, followed by middle and low income countries. 

Fossil fuels are great. Glad we used them to build a globally connected civilization and raise billions out of poverty. They aren't the future. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

40 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said:

Personally, I'm not concerned about climate change or CO2/methane emissions -- within reason, I don't obnoxiously roll coal in a 4x4. I think warming and change can be beneficial though I understand my opinion is contrary to the commonly held opinion of experts in the subject. Consequently, my opinion counts for squat. Nevertheless, that's how I feel. 

Even so, the low cost advantage of wind and solar is so obvious I can't deny it. I could deny it ten years ago but not today. After Trump gets the boot the Democrats can design programs to build and install solar/wind as part of a COVID economic revitalization plan and I'll cheer them on. All advanced economies should do it, followed by middle and low income countries. 

Fossil fuels are great. Glad we used them to build a globally connected civilization and raise billions out of poverty. They aren't the future. 

Yep. without fossil fuels, the human race would have destroyed the environment much more completely than we have, with intensive farming wiping out all arable land and forests to support population growth. Fossil fuels bought us time, letting us learn what we needed to know to avoid the Malthusian catastrophe.

I will also grant that the ecosystems that evolve in response to global warming will not necessarily be "worse" than what we have now, just different.

However, global warming will cause considerable sea level rise on the scale of a few decades, This will destroy a large amount of capital and create a lot of geopolitical tension, likely leading to wars that destroy even more capital. The quicker we can stop CO2 increase, the less serious this will be.  Sea level rise is much simpler to model than other consequences of CO2 rise, so I have higher confidence in these models, and this effect by itself is enough to make me believe that we need to stop CO2 rise as quickly as technically possible. I also believe that some of the other models are valid and we will see other problems, like regions of the Earth becoming to hot to live in, but I see not reason to argue about those since slowing seal level rise more than justifies killing fossil fuels based strictly on cost/benefit.

As you say, we no longer need to invoke CO2 mitigation at all, because the costs of wind, solar, and storage have decreased so dramatically over the last decade. Coal is dead, NG is dying, and oil is next, all based on cost alone.

[BradleyPNW + 282]

I don't see sea level rise as a significant threat because at-risk populations are already migrating to cities, e.g. Bangladeshis already migrate to Dhaka in pursuit of higher wages. Beringia and Doggerland were submersed by over 400 feet of sea level rise after the Last Glacial Maximum ~20 to 25 kya. Human populations migrated to higher ground. Yet they didn't have the mobility and institutions we have today. I think we'll adjust quite easily to sea level rise from the viewpoint of the global population taken as a whole. Some will suffer loss from sea level rise, but a very small percent in the context of 7 to 10 billion humans. 

I also don't fear climate wars. However, I think the energy security benefits of renewables are extremely valuable. Getting Europe away from Russian and Middle Eastern gas is a great thing for western democracy. So much so I think it's worth subsidizing to increase rate of adoption. 

Of course, as you say, it's going to happen anyway based on cost alone. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

30 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said:

I don't see sea level rise as a significant threat because at-risk populations are already migrating to cities, e.g. Bangladeshis already migrate to Dhaka in pursuit of higher wages. Beringia and Doggerland were submersed by over 400 feet of sea level rise after the Last Glacial Maximum ~20 to 25 kya. Human populations migrated to higher ground. Yet they didn't have the mobility and institutions we have today. I think we'll adjust quite easily to sea level rise from the viewpoint of the global population taken as a whole. Some will suffer loss from sea level rise, but a very small percent in the context of 7 to 10 billion humans. 

I also don't fear climate wars. However, I think the energy security benefits of renewables are extremely valuable. Getting Europe away from Russian and Middle Eastern gas is a great thing for western democracy. So much so I think it's worth subsidizing to increase rate of adoption. 

Of course, as you say, it's going to happen anyway based on cost alone. 

Earlier human populations did not have massive amounts of capital at risk of sea level rise, but we do. Also, that earlier event took place over multiple millennia, not 50 years.  Most US East Coast cities will be rendered uninhabitable by a 30 ft sea level rise.  Miami, New York, D.C. Baltimore, Boston, etc. On the West Coast, we lose our port facilities and  some parts of the cities, but a lot is safe because of the topology.  Each city represents many billions of dollars of capital infrastructure. Think of all the hotels on Miami Beach.

UPDATE: NO, we won't get a 30 ft rise in 50 years. This was a response to your 400 ft rise. We'll get a worst-case rise of maybe 6 feet in 80 years unless there is a catastrophic collapse of the Antarctic ice sheet. But even a 6-foot rise will be horrifically expensive in e.g. Manhattan or Miami Beach.

Edited May 8, 2020 by Dan Clemmensen

[NickW + 2,714]

6 hours ago, BradleyPNW said:

I don't see sea level rise as a significant threat because at-risk populations are already migrating to cities, e.g. Bangladeshis already migrate to Dhaka in pursuit of higher wages. Beringia and Doggerland were submersed by over 400 feet of sea level rise after the Last Glacial Maximum ~20 to 25 kya. Human populations migrated to higher ground. Yet they didn't have the mobility and institutions we have today. I think we'll adjust quite easily to sea level rise from the viewpoint of the global population taken as a whole. Some will suffer loss from sea level rise, but a very small percent in the context of 7 to 10 billion humans. 

I also don't fear climate wars. However, I think the energy security benefits of renewables are extremely valuable. Getting Europe away from Russian and Middle Eastern gas is a great thing for western democracy. So much so I think it's worth subsidizing to increase rate of adoption. 

Of course, as you say, it's going to happen anyway based on cost alone. 

Dhaka is 4 metres above sea level and sinking fast. Hardly immune from the effects of sea level when you consider that a 1 metre rise gives a 10 metre recession in coastline due to erosion. 

[BradleyPNW + 282]

11 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Earlier human populations did not have massive amounts of capital at risk of sea level rise, but we do. Also, that earlier event took place over multiple millennia, not 50 years.  Most US East Coast cities will be rendered uninhabitable by a 30 ft sea level rise.  Miami, New York, D.C. Baltimore, Boston, etc. On the West Coast, we lose our port facilities and  some parts of the cities, but a lot is safe because of the topology.  Each city represents many billions of dollars of capital infrastructure. Think of all the hotels on Miami Beach.

UPDATE: NO, we won't get a 30 ft rise in 50 years. This was a response to your 400 ft rise. We'll get a worst-case rise of maybe 6 feet in 80 years unless there is a catastrophic collapse of the Antarctic ice sheet. But even a 6-foot rise will be horrifically expensive in e.g. Manhattan or Miami Beach.

The experts in this area put it at around 2 feet -- or less -- in 80 years. RCPs (i.e RCP 8.5) that placed it higher were never realistic, even less realistic after the 2010 decade reduction in coal. I'm not saying that to be argumentative, just to help spread current expert opinion. 

[BradleyPNW + 282]

5 hours ago, NickW said:

Dhaka is 4 metres above sea level and sinking fast. Hardly immune from the effects of sea level when you consider that a 1 metre rise gives a 10 metre recession in coastline due to erosion. 

Ok, but we aren't going to see a meter of sea level rise this century. And the world of 2100 will be as different from today as today is from 1940. If you showed someone from 1940 an iPhone they'd burn you at the stake for being a witch. If you told them we had a population of 7+ billion and not only weren't people starving but we had a global obesity problem they'd call you a liar. 

[BradleyPNW + 282]

By the way, the range of climate change impacts -- high vs low -- is narrowing. In one sense that's bad because it means it's locked in. In another sense it isn't bad because it helps us understand what we need to prepare for. 

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, BradleyPNW said:

Ok, but we aren't going to see a meter of sea level rise this century. And the world of 2100 will be as different from today as today is from 1940. If you showed someone from 1940 an iPhone they'd burn you at the stake for being a witch. If you told them we had a population of 7+ billion and not only weren't people starving but we had a global obesity problem they'd call you a liar. 

Well not in Europe as this was banned around the turn of the 19th Century and in most countries well before that😉

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

Don't worry ya fear fear fear fear FEAR mongers.  Last century saw ~0.3m sea level rise and majority of it was natural caused before 1950 before horrid "fossil" fuels were being burned and fully 1/3 of that "sea level rise" was due to Northern Canada rising back out of the ice ages. 

Now back to your scheduled FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR mongering...

EDIT: 1) It would appear according to "experts" the world is on a ~20,000 year cycle of ice ages

2) To knuckleheads who can't do simple division... 120m sea level rise per 150 centuries = average sea level rise per century of nearly a meter...  We have 1/3 of that recorded in modern world and most of that was natural and no one has said otherwise.  Yes, truly scary stuff... Shake in your boots scarrrrrrrryyyyy

Edited May 9, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com