Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
Which is it? Are renewables price competitive now, or later in 2051? If they are price competitive now, then what is the explanation for it not replacing current energy production while reducing electric bills?
Any country that takes drastic measures to mitigate fossil fuel consumption without worldwide participation puts themselves at a competitive disadvantage. As my wife always says "I'll go first after you."
Is that based on nameplate generation, or real world generation? We need something like 10x nameplate generating capacity to not only cover local energy needs, but provide other regions with energy when their local weather isn't producing enough... and that all assumes that a totally intertied grid is already solved.
|
Renewables are competitive today.If total costing is the metric.
The electric bill reflects what the market will bear.It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the actual cost of production.Electric rates are structured at 150% of cost.It's why we have lobbyists.
Can you flesh out your comment about competitive disadvantage? Once capital costs are amortized out and written off,renewables have free fuel for the remaining life of the 'plant.'
An example would be Canada's Alberta Tar Sands.In 1978,cost of production was $28 /bbl.
In 1997,when the production facilities were paid for,their cost was only $11/bbl.
'Normal' oil in 2000 was selling at $27/bbl
Canada was getting rich! Just as renewables do.
Wind turbines,for instance, are 'free' by age 10-years,then $300,000/year/turbine (2-MW) revenue,free for 10 more years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Lomberg predicted that by 2016,the oil and gas industry would be spending $1-trillion a year for a resource for which 2/3rds of it would be going up in smoke if all combusted.