GE Sees Solar Cheaper Than Fossil Power in Five Years

[BridgeTheGap]

Solar power may be cheaper than electricity generated by fossil fuels and nuclear reactors within three to five years because of innovations, said Mark M. Little, the global research director for General Electric Co. (GE)

“If we can get solar at 15 cents a kilowatt-hour or lower, which I’m hopeful that we will do, you’re going to have a lot of people that are going to want to have solar at home,” Little said yesterday in an interview in Bloomberg’s Washington office. The 2009 average U.S. retail rate per kilowatt-hour for electricity ranges from 6.1 cents in Wyoming to 18.1 cents in Connecticut, according to Energy Information Administration data released in April.

GE, based in Fairfield, Connecticut, announced in April that it had boosted the efficiency of thin-film solar panels to a record 12.8 percent. Improving efficiency, or the amount of sunlight converted to electricity, would help reduce the costs without relying on subsidies.

The thin-film panels will be manufactured at a plant that GE intends to open in 2013. The company said in April that the factory will have about 400 employees and make enough panels each year to power about 80,000 homes.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-26/solar-may-be-cheaper-than-fossil-power-in-five-years-ge-says.html

[kestrel91316]

1. And THERE will be a day to celebrate!!

[buddysmellgood]

2. Which means, given coal's massive subsidy, that it is now.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Lots of qualifiers in this...

There is much more to having a solid energy infrastructure than lots of intermittent renewable sources. Yes being able to provide solar power cheaper that fossil fuel based generation is a great thing (when it finally happens), but that is only a small part of the required energy infrastructure.

[kristopher]

4. No, it isn't.

Anyone with any knowledge at all of the issues involved KNOWS that providing "solar power cheaper that fossil fuel based generation" is the single most important goal involved in effecting a transition.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. Actually anyone with knowledge in the field knows that generation is only part of the solution

and it should be renewables, not just solar.

While we are getting there with solar costs, predicting exactly it will be cheaper than fossil fuels is a lot like predicting the rapture. Lots of prophets seeking profit, but hard data is not quite here yet. Regardless, it is clearly coming.

Other technologies hopefully will follow soon after. However, renewable based generation alone is just part of the solution. Effective management & integration of intermittent sources is still evolving. Current approaches still require spinning reserve, mostly based on fossil fuels and in some places nuclear. Those too needs to be replaced with renewables, but will take more time and will not be instantaneous with the cost crossover as some seem to think.

[kristopher]

9. You aren't correct very often

And this isn't the exception.


1) Solar is the resource that will ultimately form the backbone of the renewable grid.
2) Solar PV has been the resource that is LEAST competitive with coal other than new build nuclear.
3) Solar PV IS CURRENTLY competitive with "fossil fuels" in that even in places like New Jersey it is cost effective for utility level investment when considering avoided costs of natural gas peaking power. The economic balance is triggered by avoided land costs through customer rooftop hosting.
4) The market has expanded from that to include commercial rooftops, again to offset peak energy prices for users with high demand that can't use load shifting.

Finally yoiur remarks about spinning reserves are completely meaningless. It is a part of a thought out of context intended to convey the impression of a liability where none exists. If you'd like to fully develop it as a concept be my guest.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. As usual your statements are tangential at best and demonstrate how little you really know about

the requirements of running a power grid.

[kristopher]

14. Feel free to go into details.

You've demonstrated repeatedly that you haven't got a clue so please, I beg you, go into detail.

[madokie]

18. Solar is ideal because we need our most power during the day

I probably won't live to see solar on my roof top but I'd bet money my step sons will.

[txlibdem]

35. true

Here's a chart I found to illustrate the energy demand per hour.
http://sdenergydata.com/ElectricitySD.html#pwrdmd

[madokie]

36. We only average 1000 kwh per month

San Diego 6000 kwh per month. Am I reading that right? It gets hotter'n hell and humid to boot around here in NE OK

[txlibdem]

37. I think you're looking at the entire state

The chart that comes up from the link I posted is daily, only for San Diego County. If you scroll down, it's a chart for the entire state of CA. That is weird... It shows a little over 60 GigaWatts per day in September (thanks to air conditioners).

[madokie]

38. No wonder it didn't seem right to me

I'm not much of a chart reader anyway.

[lfairban]

10. One question.

Can we stop blowing the tops off of mountains now?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. I sure as hell hope so...

[txlibdem]

16. Don't worry about the "often wrong" comments from posters here

People who live in glass houses... Pot/Kettle... etc.

Some posters proclaim that they are all for wind and solar but then occasionally let it slip that it will require natural gas power plants to take up the slack when it's midnight and the wind isn't blowing (therefore zero electrical output from the renewables).

There are many of us here on DU intelligent enough to see through those natural gas industry talking points and who understand that solar, wind, tidal and wave power needs to feed into energy storage first, then out to the grid proper. The storage system does not have to be at or even near the point of renewable energy generation. It can be local, or regional but there is no question that energy storage is needed.

The other zero carbon energy sources: hydro from existing dams, geothermal plants and nuclear power plants do not need energy storage because they are virtually "always on" energy sources.

Take solar panels for instance. In New Jersey a solar panel will get on average 4 hours of usable sunlight per day. But if you place that same solar panel in the desert southwest it will receive 7 hours of usable sunlight per day. The question becomes, what do you do for power the other 20 or 17 hours out of 24? The grid is going to supply your needs the rest of the time -- and what does the grid run off of today? 50% coal, x% natural gas, etc.

The other option is to purchase 6 panels and put them in New Jersey, or purchase a little over 3 panels and put them in the desert southwest and have them feed into an energy storage system of some kind: 1. Pumped Hydro; 2. Batteries; 3. Compressed Air; 4. Molten Salt (not so great for solar PV but very good for concentrating solar thermal power plants.

The point is that intermittent renewables need to have extra capacity plus adequate energy storage to make them integrate seamlessly into the grid. There is no other solution except the fevered dreams (or is it the "crafty schemes") of fossil fuels supporters.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. I don't

One in particular has so disqualified himself with his screeds that I often choose just to ignore his blather.

There is a lot of considerations to successfully running the power grids of nations. Many moving parts that all have to work together to do their jobs. Ideologues clearly do not understand the subtleties and choose instead to berate others as "nuclear lovers" rather than consider the critical details.

As I posted elsewhere, the one good thing out of Fukushima is that it may finally bring about the twilight of nuclear power generation in my lifetime. Without it or something like it, more nuclear plants were going to be built. There is still much to do in getting renewables ready to replace nuclear and fossil fuels, but the science is there, it is now a case of engineering, and that we can do.

[kristopher]

23. Still waiting for those details...

[txlibdem]

24. We agree on so much

The possible exception is *when* to get rid of nuclear power.

I believe that we need all the zero-carbon energy sources we can get until fossil fuels are a distant memory and renewable energy can safely and reliably provide 100% of our energy needs. I believe that a temporary expansion of our nuclear power plants will be needed to reach that goal in time to save the planet from climate catastrophe (and a billion deaths caused by drought, flooding, disease, civil strife and resource wars).

You don't have to agree with me on nuclear power, I'm just saying my peace. I think 30% nuclear power and 70% renewable energy is the point at which we should begin to phase out nuclear power plants and ramp up more renewables to cover the loss in generating capacity.

PS, as I stated in an earlier post to this OP, electric vehicles are a must as well - we need to end oil as bad as we need to end coal.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. I think it is clear that the days of nuclear power are numbered.

I won't quibble as to the exact date or get on a ideological soap box that it has to be yesterday. There are a lot of moving parts that need to get redone including transportation as you point out and it can not be done over night. The good news is that it is mostly and engineering problem and not one of new science required.

By way of example, the Germans are saying that they have a well vetted plan to go forward and not build additional or renew current nuclear plants. It may work out or there may a few plants extended. Creating strict time lines when there is significant work ahead, some still not fully defined and understood is dumb and I will leave that to the ideologues.

[txlibdem]

31. Germany and Japan moving off of nuclear will be an interesting experiment

Other posters have stated that Germany will simply end up buying nuclear power from France. Japan, I don't know how that will work out.

Neither country has what I would call a balmy climate so if they succeed at going fully renewable energy then it will be an example for the rest of the world to follow. If they fall short, then their green house gas emissions shoot sky high and they set us back decades for our goal of limiting global climate change.

[progressoid]

6. Sounds like we need to give GE some more TAX BREAKS to make this happen!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. There are already massive subsidies, though not direct to GE

In CA the tax credits etc are quite nice. I saw and announcement where FL recently started a similar program.

[kristopher]

15. Actually it is the nuclear industry that has had "massive subsidies" not renewables

SUBSIDIES OFTEN EXCEED THE VALUE OF THE ENERGY PRODUCED

This report catalogues in one place and for the first time the full range of subsidies that benefit the nuclear power sector. The findings are strik- ing: since its inception more than 50 years ago, the nuclear power industry has benefited — and continues to benefit — from a vast array of preferential government subsidies. Indeed, as Figure ES-1 (p. 2) shows, subsidies to the nuclear fuel cycle have often exceeded the value of the power produced. This means that buying power on the open market and giving it away for free would have been less costly than subsidizing the construction and opera- tion of nuclear power plants. Subsidies to new reactors are on a similar path.

Throughout its history, the industry has argued that subsidies were only temporary, a short-term stimulus so the industry could work through early technical hurdles that prevented economical reactor operation. A 1954 advertisement from General Electric stated that, “In five years — certainly within ten,” civilian reactors would be “privately financed, built without government subsidy.” That day never arrived and, despite industry claims to the contrary, remains as elusive as ever.

NUCLEAR POWER: Still Not Viable without Subsidies
Doug Koplow

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf

[ProgressiveProfessor]

21. So the Federal and State, and utility tax credits, rebates, etc do not exist for solar?

Have to wonder why I and so many have received them and continue to do so. With them, most homeowners get about a 10 year ROI, about half the notional service life. Note that these are end user benefits, not to the manufacturer or the utilities and depending on how you do the accounting, they approach 50% of system cost.

Also note that nowhere did I say they are a bad thing. To the contrary, I think they are one of the ways were are going to get photovoltaic based co-generation to be the norm in many areas of the US. A very good thing indeed.

[kristopher]

25. Nowhere did you say they are a bad thing?

Well, I was struck by your use of the expression "massive subsidies" when referring to solar.

That has a lot of meaning buried in it. The discussion is supposedly among people who want to see progress in renewable technologies to address the issue of climate change and think that the pace of action is little more than a crawl - so it is difficult to imagine that selecting the term "massive" to describe solar subsidies was intended to convey a positive meaning. I don't know of anyone that actually supports renewables that thinks the subsidies are "massive". To a person they think the subsidies are a hit and miss bunch of slapdash band-aids that should be increased by a massive amount.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

28. You continue to read into others posts that which is not there

That you swim in a very small pond is not my concern. Find a larger one with people who do not share your ideological rabidness and McCarthy like approach to discourse and you might learn how things work in the real world.

An up to 50% discount to the end users with profits still being made along the way by the manufacturers and installers/dealers is massive subsidy/incentive to the PV industry. Ask any Economics or Business professor to put that in context for you if you need help understanding that. It is true that not all states/jurisdictions have them at that level. The CA program also steps down the incentives as more megawatts come online to encourage early participation. Could there be more? Of course. However the key point is that it is working today. Property owners with a long term view are investing in PV and it is a good thing for all of us.

If you want something legitimate to attack for a change, identify states/localities that still allow HOAs and CC&Rs to block visible PV arrays and go after them. In CA we have a solar rights act. Other states are not so lucky.

[kristopher]

32. I suppose it is all that training in applied linguistics that leads me astray...

1) In Massachusetts today, there seems to be a status quo consensus that giving big tax breaks to companies is a good economic development strategy. But if the state is using precious taxpayer dollars to create jobs at a massive subsidy rate at a time when local aid, human services, health care, environmental protection and infrastructure investments are being cut back, isn’t it the responsibility of public officials to revisit this strategy? While a group of progressive Democrats have led the fight over the past few years to increase corporate tax credit transparency, the status quo still persists."


2) But now the industry is already back to its old tricks. ... At first, there was a joint plan to promote the subsidy for solar ...According to Scheer, solar technology is an excellent technology. It doesn't trouble him that its share of electricity generation is so tiny, despite the massive subsidies. He believes that solar energy's time will come. In 10, 20 or 30 years, says Scheer, this technology could be responsible for significant portions of the power supply.


3) "The government has granted massive subsidies to renewable energy producers in recent years which have made Spain one of the world leaders in the sector. Spanish media said the photovoltaics sector received 983.4 million euros (1.284 billion dollars) in state aid in the first five months of this year alone.

The government this year has introduced tough austerity measures to rein in the public deficit from a massive 11.2 percent of gross domestic product in 2009 to six percent in 2011 and three percent -- the EU limit -- by 2013."


And finally straight from freeperville via google:
4) "The whole Solar Industry is a big scam. This industry cannot survive without government subsidies. The cost of energy from solar is very high and not in the least bit competitive. Without massive subsidies, the solar industry would die out very quickly. The basic problem is that you only get about 6 good hours of sunlight on even the best of days. That’s just not viable. In Germany it’s probably even worse. How much solar power will you get in Germany in the middle of winter? NOT VERY MUCH. And yet so many fools have put their faith in the boondoggle. It would be one thing to believe in Solar Power if you lived in Tucson, AZ. It’s another if you live in Berlin. I once was in Berlin in November (for about a week) and I don’t think I saw the sun the whole time."

[ProgressiveProfessor]

33. That would require a level of literacy from you not yet in evidence

Quibbling over word choice vice actual content does you no good.

The PV subsidies/incentives are a clear government success story. I won't claim that they are at the perfect level, but at least in some states they are working well. Rejoice in the success and paradigm change and move forward.

You might even try to do some useful things in the area of renewables as I suggested earlier.

[kristopher]

34. One thing you can tell by screen names...

There are a lot of posers out there.

[diane in sf]

7. Good, I hope they plan on selling a lot of panels.

[4dsc]

8. So what.

This means nothing to the end of the age of oil as we know it. Cheaper solar won't replace oil so what's the big deal? We are an oil based society and solar means little.

[GliderGuider]

19. That's the rub, isn't it? It's a two-pronged problem

Global warming is one prong, caused mainly by electricity generation. Peak Oil, on the other hand is mainly a transportation problem. Renewable electricity generation only addresses only one prong.

[txlibdem]

22. Two prongs: electric vehicles plus renewable energy

Remember that our fossil fuels addiction is going to take a multi-pronged attack from all angles if we are to win (survive).

I include under the category of electric vehicles a number of transportation options:
Electric Cars
Electric Trucks, from the 1-ton all the way up to the 10-ton or higher
Electric Trains, not powered by diesel engines but a third rail or an overhead wire, (such as we have here in Dallas).
MagLev Trains and other options for high speed rail
and, farther off in the future, Personal Automated Transit.

Do all of these and we are done with oil forever.

[GliderGuider]

27. How did we survive before them?

There are currently 800 million cars and light trucks in the world.
According to the Peak Oil nerds, the world oil market will be empty by 2035 or so (only domestic production will be available). Half the world will be essentially without oil.
Replacing half the cars now on the road with electrics by then will require us to make 17 million electric cars a year on average.
With batteries and charging infrastructure.

That's one-third of the current world car production volume.
At the moment we make, to a first approximation, none.

Colour me skeptical (as usual).

On the other hand, at some point we will be done with oil forever no matter what happens. The question is what will be be doing, civilization-wise, at that point? Will we be driving to Denny's in electric cars? Or walking out to the back yard to butcher a chicken? I'm very tempted to sign up for a chicken-plucking course...

[txlibdem]

29. I can teach you

When I was a teenager we raised rabbits and chickens.

PS, I agree that replacing all the vehicles on the road with electric cars and electric trucks is going to be a herculean task. I don't think the American government can agree on anything long enough to get that done. My post stated that is what we need to do, not that I'm 100% confident that we will be able to stick with it long enough to actually do it.

[GliderGuider]

30. I just might take you up on that :-)

Sorry if I got a little snarky there. Yes, politics, human nature and the vagaries of economic reality are going to pose major challenges to all our desires for perfecting the human experience. We'll do the best we can.

[madokie]

17. I hope we don't have a change of course

because we're heading in the right direction right now.

rec

[One_Life_To_Give]

39. This is a sales pitch to push up stock price

Releasing this information in Bloomberg? Then it's more about convincing investors to put their cash into GE stock. Car salesmen tell me lots of stuff too.

[txlibdem]

40. I wonder if GE will ever make them in a thin film "peel and stick" format

I can't remember the name of the company that is doing that already but it seems like such a good idea. No mounting hardware, just need an opening in the peak of the roof to route all the power cables through.

Does anyone know if they will?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

41. There is a bit more to a safe and code compliant installation than that...

Panels are grouped and linked in to balanced strings that are feed to an inverter and then onto the grid. Interconnection wiring has to be done to the correct standards and the the connection to the inverter requires a grade of wire that must be run inside conduit. There needs to be accessible cut offs for the inverter for safety. Roofing material must be fire resistant as in tile or composition. There are also wind and structural considerations.

That is a layman's version of the current rules in California.

[txlibdem]

43. All the electrical connections have to be made by a licensed contractor

But in many states any licensed electrician can make the necessary connections. IIRC Texas is one such state. That would make it far easier to find a contractor that will allow you to do most of the installation work yourself and then pay them to make the proper connections.

It is installation costs that are the largest impediment to middle class families being able to have solar. I received a quote recently for $28,000 for a 5500 watt (5.5kW) solar installation. There is absolutely zero chance I can afford it.

But if you look for just the system components you find that the actual cost of the hardware is $12,000 (for a 5456 watt system)
http://sunelec.com/index.php?main_page=pv_systems&id=1122&type=GT
... using flexible thin film panels

or

$14,000 for a 6000 watt, using more "standard" panels
http://sunelec.com/index.php?main_page=pv_systems&id=1168&type=GT
...PV Panel mounting hardware extra

Thus my preference for the thin film panels (something that I could easily install and would work with our roof type). If I can find a licensed contractor to do the job for less than $16,000 I'll come out ahead and still be eligible for all the rebates. And, please, if any contractor took a look at my house and said he'd charge $16,000 to make a few dozen connections I'd boot him across the road.

[primavera]

42. Doesn't this kind of make you wonder...

... how much further along we might be now had we begun investing seriously in solar research and development decades ago? Or how much farther we might be in just a few short years if we were to commit to solar energy research even a fraction of the resources we devote to the oil and gas industry?

[txlibdem]

44. Blame Ronald “trees cause more pollution than automobiles do" Reagan

Reagan Redux: The Gipper helped save the ozone layer but almost single-handedly ruined Americas leadership in clean energy
By Joe Romm on Feb 6, 2011 at 5:05 pm

As for energy, Reagan almost single-handedly killed America’s global leadership in renewable energy (see “Who got us in this energy mess? Start with Ronald Reagan“).

President Reagan is the “culprit in chief” when it comes to the “current energy debacle” explained Richard Cohen in his 2008 piece “Wish Upon a Pump.” I could not agree more.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/02/06/207471/reagan-ozone-layer-clean-energy/