Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard
But I'd given up on it since it went off-topic
|
Thanks for the bring it back on topic effort.
I propose moving all the over population discussion to a new thread might help with that as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard
Basically people won't stop doing bad things unless it will make them money.
|
Yup.
Which is why I 1st chimed in to point out the error in their conclusion about the point at which RE make money compared to dirtier options.
In case you missed it ... Here it is again:
- - - - - -
Quote:
So what price should we be aiming for?
Consider an average U.S. coal or natural gas plant that has been in service for decades; its cost of electricity generation is about 4 to 6 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour. What’s needed are zero-carbon energy sources so cheap that the operators of power plants and industrial facilities alike have an economic rationale for switching over within the next 40 years.
|
So they want zero-carbon option within the next 40 years that will be financially cost competitive with coal $0.04 to $0.06 per kwh.
Their conclusion that this financially competitive point can not be reached over the next 40 years ... is incorrect... so I pointed out where we are at today ... doesn't include any improvements in the next ~40 years... or the prices increases in the 'coal' competition over that 40 years as well.
Quote:
|
According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.
|
Link
There are already RE options today that satisfy the targets they wanted RE to reach 40 years from now... much less what the higher $ the coal option will be in 40 years ... or the lower $ RE options that will be around in 40 years.