It's Official: Solar Is the Cheapest Electricity in History

[steven36]

The International Energy Agency (IEA) says the cost per megawatt to build solar plants is below fossil fuels worldwide for the first time.

Public success stories like Elon Musk's solar and wind battery farm in Australia have helped move public sentiment.

All four IEA scenarios include a mix of renewables as well as nuclear and the world's remaining fossil fuel plants.

 

 

In a new report, the International Energy Agency (IEA) says solar is now the cheapest form of electricity for utility companies to build. That’s thanks to risk-reducing financial policies around the world, the agency says, and it applies to locations with both the most favorable policies and the easiest access to financing. The report underlines how important these policies are to encouraging development of renewables and other environmentally forward technologies.

 

Carbon Brief (CB) summarizes the annual report with a lot of key details. The World Energy Outlook 2020 “offers four ‘pathways’ to 2040, all of which see a major rise in renewables,” CB says. “The IEA’s main scenario has 43 [percent] more solar output by 2040 than it expected in 2018, partly due to detailed new analysis showing that solar power is 20 [to] 50 [percent] cheaper than thought.”

 

The calculation depends on financing figures compared with the amount of output for solar projects. That means that at the same time panel technology gets more efficient and prices for basic panels continue to fall, investors are getting better and better financing deals. CB explains:

“Previously the IEA assumed a range of 7 [to] 8 [percent] for all technologies, varying according to each country’s stage of development. Now, the IEA has reviewed the evidence internationally and finds that for solar, the cost of capital is much lower, at 2.6 [to] 5.0 [percent] in Europe and the US, 4.4 [to] 5.5 [percent] in China and 8.8 [to] 10.0 [percent] in India.”

So the statistic “20 to 50 percent cheaper” is based on a calculus of companies building solar projects, not something that has throughput for consumers or even solar homeowners. But it’s still a big deal, because the cost to build power plants is a major part of why so much of the world has stuck with coal and gas power. With the new, lowered cost of capital, solar’s cost per megawatt has fallen almost completely below both gas and coal worldwide. (These statistical models get into some detail, but very local results are different, of course.)

Buy the Best Solar Panels

What causes cost of capital to lower? It depends on a bunch of things, but for renewable energy, there are a few low-hanging factors. As people and companies see more successful projects like Elon Musk’s South Australia solar battery farm, their investment confidence grows.

 

The better the technology’s batting average, the more you look forward to its at-bats. And the cost of the technology itself continues to fall, meaning investors are asked to swallow at least a little smaller pill. Then, policies like tax incentives and low-cost financing sweeten the deal.

 

IEA’s recommendations include similar projections and calculations for all renewables as well as nuclear. Solar is well positioned to blow up in the next 10 years, the IEA says, because right now it’s in the sweet spot of low cost and increasing availability. All the pathways listed include a mix of renewables, nuclear, and shrinking coal and gas power. And while the news is very good for solar, it’s still pretty good for all the other renewables as well as nuclear, the IEA says.

 

Source

[Karlston]

Cost is just one important factor.

 

Reliability trumps cost. Solar needs storage of some type to give it reliability to meet the early morning and evening peak usage periods when it provides little or no power.

 

 

[mp68terr]

Good point, storage is a kind of bottleneck for the electricity industry. Electricity has to be provided when needed, neither before nor after.

One 'old' way is to use electricity for a 'work' (like pumping water up the hill) when there is no need, and 'reverse this work' (like using the power of the water going down the hill to produce electricity) when there is a need. Don't know if this way to 'store' electricity has evolved. Farming physical batteries near electricity farms is not an option.

[Karlston]

31 minutes ago, mp68terr said:

Don't know if this way to 'store' electricity has evolved.

 

I think that’s called “storage hydro”. Excess, otherwise wasted power is used to pump water up to a dam, where it can released on demand to generate hydro power.

 

It irks me when people ridicule this by calling it useless because it consumes more power (the pump uphill) than it releases when running downhill. That’s true, but hey miss the key point that the power used in the uphill pump is excess power which would otherwise go to waste. In a sense it’s free.

 

I think hydrogen will become the ideal storage for solar energy, and for any unreliable power source. Solar power could be used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen,  and storing the former to be burnt later to generate power on demand. And the only waste product from burning hydrogen is pure water, which could be split again. The panel farm, the splitter, storage, and turbines all at one location becomes the “power station”.

[mp68terr]

Indeed water to H+O then H+O to water is another good example.

Using batteries looks the more obvious for small/limited power and quick implementation (but likely for short term storage), there are luckily other ways to store big amount of otherwise wasted energy. As you said the efficiency should not be a main concern. Saw several of these systems.

[Arachnoid]

It's also vastly reliant on a climate that has many hours of suitable weather during the day to provide enough energy to refill your power bank of whatever kind thats used. The technology is fine for subtropical regions like Australia but would fail miserable for several months of the year say in Ireland. Apart from being a highly subsidized form of energy production thats only produced for part of the day, it uses vast tracks of land to produce enough viable output to make it cost-effective to install and export.

[steven36]

1 hour ago, Arachnoid said:

It's also vastly reliant on a climate that has many hours of suitable weather during the day to provide enough energy to refill your power bank of whatever kind thats used. The technology is fine for subtropical regions like Australia but would fail miserable for several months of the year say in Ireland.

Who's   research is that based  on?  From researching it myself it seems to be a misconception  People use them  in Ireland to heat  water . 

 

 

Quote

Solar Panels work very well in Ireland.  As Irish people we have a conception that we do not have much sun here but the reality is we receive as much solar radiation as France, Germany and the UK - all places where solar panels have been serving their populations well over the last few decades.  Ireland receives only 6% less solar energy than Germany and 26% less than the very sunny Spain.

http://glenergysolar.ie/solar-panels/

Quote

Contrary to what you may think, solar panels run on light from the sun, not the heat. So as long as the sun is out and it’s daylight (which even on a windy and rainy day, it will be) your solar panel will create electricity to power your house. In fact, heat from the sun can actually affect the efficiency of a solar panel negatively, as they can overheat, reducing the amount of power they generate. This means that having your solar panel fitted in Ireland is an extremely efficient and sustainable way to power your washing machine

.

 

Source:

https://caldorsolar.ie/blog/how-do-solar-panels-work-in-ireland/

 

 

 

Quote

Feb 25, 2020,

About 50,000 homes in Ireland have installed solar panels in an attempt to cut energy bills and play a part in moving away from fossil fuels – and that number is growing by the thousands every year.

 

Source:

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/solar-panels-are-they-worth-the-investment-1.4182328?mode=amp

 

8 Myths  About Solar

Myth 1: Solar Energy Panels are bad for the environment.

Fact: The amount of sunlight that hits the Earth in 1 minute, meets the world’s energy demands for an entire year! 75 million barrels of oil and 35 million tons of carbon dioxide are saved annualy by solar energy users.

 

Myth 2: Solar panels are unattractive and they can damage your roof.

 

Fact: Professional installers can place solar panels on any roof pitch, angle, and condition. They will not damage a homeowner’s roof, and, in some cases, solar panels extend the roof’s life by protecting it from the elements. Ultimately, the aesthetics of solar panels on a home are subjective. However, with the growing popularity of solar power, professionals can install solar panels in positions and locations to minimize their visual impact. Depending on your yard, panels can even be mounted on the ground. Solar shingles can also help with curb appeal by better blending in with your existing roof.

Myth 3: Solar panels do not work well in cloudy places.

Fact: Most solar panels actually work best in cold conditions. They use light, not heat, to generate electricity. Cold temperatures increase their conductivity, letting electricity flow more efficiently. As solar panels heat up, they generate less electricity from the same amount of light.

 

Myth 4: I won’t live in my home long enough to earn an ROI on any money I put into solar panels.

 

Fact: Depending on your system and location, solar panels pay for themselves within six to 15 years. If you add in the most lucrative state and federal tax credits and incentives, you could start seeing an ROI within two to four years. Solar panels also increase the resale value of a home by about €12,000. So even if you won’t be in your home for the next 15 years, you can still see a significant ROI when you sell.

Myth 5: Solar panels require constant maintenance.

Fact: Solar arrays are designed to be durable and require minimal maintenance. Many installers recommend annual inspections to check the panels and system performance, and some offer lifetime warranties for the system. Plus, if you lease the panels and system, maintenance is typically provided by the leasing company. Keep in mind, panels with tracking subsystems may require additional maintenance and care.

 

Myth 6: Solar panels are too expensive.

Fact: Renewable energy is actually already cheaper than coal and nuclear power at every step. Also there are no input costs for solar energy – the sunlight is free. Market price aside, coal and nuclear power have huge hidden costs. You can even apply for a grant. Solar offers the opportunity to negate high electricity inflation locking in costs for 20 years thus providing a cheaper predictable alternative for both homes and businesses in Ireland. 

 

Myth 7: Installing Solar Panels will increase your tax. 

 

Fact: You actually save tax. Companies can take advantage of 100% Accelerated Capital Allowances. The ACA is a tax incentive for companies paying corporation tax and aims to encourage investment in energy efficient equipment. The ACA offers an attractive incentive whereby it allows companies to write off 100% of the purchase value of qualifying energy efficient equipment against their profit in the year of purchase.

Myth 8: Solar panel systems store excess energy in batteries.

Fact: The vast majority of home solar power systems don’t store energy in batteries. They’re connected to the power grid via net metering, and homeowners are credited with the energy their solar panels add to the electrical grid. Though it is possible to add a battery to your solar installation, doing so increases the cost of materials, installation and maintenanc

4 hours ago, Karlston said:

I think hydrogen will become the ideal storage for solar energy, and for any unreliable power source.

It sould only be used  from only  clean  power sources 

-

The European Union has a strategic plan for the transition to green hydrogen, with a view to decarbonization and climate neutrality in the future. Hydrogen, therefore, is fundamental for the future of energy and decarbonization, but not all hydrogen is valid in this transition: we need to accelerate the transition to green hydrogen obtained from clean sources. The oil industry is deliberately trying to sow confusion over whether hydrogen could replace electric vehicles: green hydrogen will most likely be used as energy storage and in a growing range of industrial processes in the future, instead of for refueling our vehicles. But from now on, when we hear about hydrogen, let’s clarify what we’re talking about, what we mean, and what color it is. Even if it’s still colorless.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/enriquedans/2020/10/05/what-does-green-hydrogen-mean-and-what-can-we-use-itfor/#3902a6b81561

 

[Selinwine]

Elon Musk is Tony Stark in our universe!

[Logarius]

Wow, this important event for all mankind has finally happened.

[SouthernStar]

A step in the right direction for cleaner energy

But i don't see solar being the answer for  everyone

Think it's going to take a mix of new technologies 

 

If i recall china is going to build over 100 new  N...Reactors  in the coming years

So much for working together to solve the green house problem

 

[rasbridge]

"China has proposed additional new coal plants that, if built, would generate 73.5 gigawatts of power, more than five times the 13.9 gigawatts proposed in the rest of the world combined."

Source: https://e360.yale.edu/features/despite-pledges-to-cut-emissions-china-goes-on-a-coal-spree#:~:text=China has also proposed additional new coal plants,than three times the capacity permitted in 2019.

[Arachnoid]

On 10/23/2020 at 2:34 PM, steven36 said:

Who's   research is that based  on?  From researching it myself it seems to be a misconception  People use them  in Ireland to heat  water . 

 

Yes solar heating via solar panels exists but it is only used as a pre-heat for the water not as a permanent heating solution. There is simply a lack of enough sunshine within the UK to have solar as anything other than a supplemental solution.

If you lool up Solo Aussie Off Grid Living on youtube he lives in the Australian outback with more sunshine than the UK and despite all the panels and battery back storage he still has to run his generator on cloudy days to top them up. He even stated in one of his videos the cost of living this way probably equates to just living of the main supply grid.

[rasbridge]

"The Reuter wires service reports, based on a news item in the official China Daily, and quoting the China Nuclear Energy Association, that China will build six to eight nuclear reactors a year between 2020 and 2025."

https://neutronbytes.com/2020/07/11/china-ramps-up-new-nuclear-reactor-construction/

------

China now has 49 nuclear reactors in operation, according to the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum.  In addition, it has 16 under construction and 39 in planning stages.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Energy/China-breaks-ground-on-Russian-designed-nuclear-reactors

 

[rasbridge]

"China had 1,020 GW of coal-fired power by the end of July, 2019, amounting to 55% of its total installed capacity."

 

"China's total planned coal-fired power plant projects now stand at 226.2 GW, the highest in the world and more than twice the amount of new capacity on the books in India."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-china-coal-idUSKBN1W40HS

 

[flash48]

China is the number one manufacturer of solar panels and if solar is the cheapest electricity in history then the question one must ask, "why does China  build many coal and nuclear power plants and no solar energy plants?"