Environmentalists will need to fix these charts before green energy is worth it.

[Laize]

If the charts aren't showing for you, click the following link: http://www.businessinsider.com/peopl...nergy-2012-11#

Here are some charts I found re: Green Energy. They include total startup costs, costs of operation and costs passed to the consumer as well as efficiency (Which is actually reflected in the cost/kWh).

Without further ado...










Solar must reach 10 million megawatts of capacity to become cost competitive. The additional solar power panels would cover 2.25 New Jerseys

There are several others here.

Suffice it to say that the cheapest green energy is far more expensive than the cheapest fossil fuels.

The only exception seems to be nuclear power where costs of generation are competitive with fossil fuels (right around NatGas). If you want renewable energy, however... you're kinda fucked. Not only have solar companies been shitting the bed, current efficiencies (Generally 10-12%) don't allow for extremely efficient use of the land they occupy. Wind turbines seem pretty good, but only onshore and not all areas are suitable for wind power.

If you want clean energy, your best bet is nuclear. Right now solar and other "green" sources can go get fucked with the kinds of prices they're running.

[This name sucks]

Your pictures are all dead.

And they give me a 403

But nuclear (or hydrogen if we ever solve the whole electrolysis problem) is the future.

[Kasierith]

This is a good reason for more research to be done to make green energy more cost efficient.

[Laize]

Your pictures are all dead.

And they give me a 403

But nuclear (or hydrogen if we ever solve the whole electrolysis problem) is the future.

Odd... working just fine for me still

[Underverse]

Yeah with time that'll change. Cost of fossil fuels will go up with scarcity, and cost of green energy will go down with availability (and more research). Well, it'll go down if we invest in it at least.

Edit: can't see the pics either

[Deleted]

Odd... working just fine for me still

That's because they're in your cache.

[Rukentuts]

Costs of solar and wind are plummeting at the moment. With research and more technological advances, it will only continue to fall.

[Laize]

This is a good reason for more research to be done to make green energy more cost efficient.

Well as far as I'm aware, solar photovoltaic is the only one that can be made more efficient. I'm not sure of the others, but I know Denmark and one of the other Scandinavian nations has dumped oodles of cash into offshore wind. The costs to produce that power remain well above the most expensive fossil fuels.



I'm really not sure what everyone's beef is with nuclear. It's clean, efficient and safe.

[geewhiz80]

Thorium nuclear energy is the way to go. No risk of meltdown, much less radiation output which requires a much smaller shielding facility, also thorium is (I think) 8-10 times more abundant than uranium, and thorium cannot be used to make nuclear weaponry. Yet no one in the U.S. government is even openly discussing the possibility of it. My thought is that they don't want to talk about it because it's "nuclear".

Edit: Also cannot see your pictures so, just decided to add my two cents on the subject.

[Kasierith]

I'm really not sure what everyone's beef is with nuclear. It's clean, efficient and safe.

And incredibly expensive to get up and running, even if its cost afterward is relatively good.

[Gheld]

Your pictures are all dead.

And they give me a 403

But nuclear (or hydrogen if we ever solve the whole electrolysis problem) is the future.

If by electrolysis problem you mean second law of thermodynamics, I'm afraid that's here to stay.

[Laize]

That's because they're in your cache.

*CTRL+F5*
*Command+R*

Nope. Still working.

[This name sucks]

Well as far as I'm aware, solar photovoltaic is the only one that can be made more efficient. I'm not sure of the others, but I know Denmark and one of the other Scandinavian nations has dumped oodles of cash into offshore wind. The costs to produce that power remain well above the most expensive fossil fuels.



I'm really not sure what everyone's beef is with nuclear. It's clean, efficient and safe.

Nuclear propaganda, people shitting their pants for no reason from the Japanese disaster. Like germany france and belgium all cancelled plans to build new nuclear plants because they were afraid of a possible accident. (despite they weren't even going to be built in a fucking earthquake/tsunami zone)

[klimon]

Are the fossil fuels you are comparing subsidized by the government? Are the green fuels equally subsidized? Do you expect fossil fuel costs to stay stagnant? To increase? To decrease? Do you expect green energy costs to increase? decrease? stay the same?

In the short term, fossil fuels remain the cheaper alternative. In the medium to long term, even "energy" companies (ie - oil companies) know the smart move is to be diversified and start developing alternatives sooner rather than later. Today's investments will may alternative energy sources cheaper, either relatively or absolutely, in the future.

[Laize]

Thorium nuclear energy is the way to go. No risk of meltdown, much less radiation output which requires a much smaller shielding facility, also thorium is (I think) 8-10 times more abundant than uranium, and thorium cannot be used to make nuclear weaponry. Yet no one in the U.S. government is even openly discussing the possibility of it. My thought is that they don't want to talk about it because it's "nuclear".

Edit: Also cannot see your pictures so, just decided to add my two cents on the subject.

Or because it just recently became a nascent technology in China.

[Cthulhu 2020]

If people only realized just how much oil was subsidized in the US, they'd be screaming for their hard earned tax dollars to be going somewhere else.

Fuel is subsidized to make you continue to believe it's cheap. You really should take some time to research where your tax dollars go and how much you're ACTUALLY spending at the pump.

Other countries are beating us to cheap renewable alternatives and it's already become reality in most of those countries, meanwhile we continue to appease a fuel addiction and treat progress with apathy.

[Laize]

Are the fossil fuels you are comparing subsidized by the government? Are the green fuels equally subsidized? Do you expect fossil fuel costs to stay stagnant? To increase? To decrease? Do you expect green energy costs to increase? decrease? stay the same?

In the short term, fossil fuels remain the cheaper alternative. In the medium to long term, even "energy" companies (ie - oil companies) know the smart move is to be diversified and start developing alternatives sooner rather than later. Today's investments will may alternative energy sources cheaper, either relatively or absolutely, in the future.

There is a table depicting total subsidies granted to different energy types compared to how much of that money wound up creating how much new energy capacity.

Wind was one of the most heavily subsidized fuels on there and still produced about 1/3 of the energy per $ spent than coal or other fossil fuels.

---------- Post added 2013-01-09 at 02:34 AM ----------

And incredibly expensive to get up and running, even if its cost afterward is relatively good.

Actually if you look at the chart, nuclear is cheaper to get up and running than coal.

Advanced coal has a Levelized Capital Cost ($/mWh) of $93.

Advanced Nuclear is $88.8.

Total system levelized costs (which include fuel) are even lower still.

[Wells]

The costs to produce that power remain well above the most expensive fossil fuels.

After factoring health costs?

[Rukentuts]

Laize was that the DOE chart by chance?

[KingHorse]

There is a table

The table is a lie.

Seriously, no working charts still. I'd love to contribute something useful, but not at the cost of bothering to look up the info on my own =P