Not all of us can afford a nuclear power plant either, but calling them failed based on that alone is just plain silly. There are affordable ways to lease solar panels that still end up cheaper than grid energy. My point was in response to Yanik's claim that there is no economic case for renewables.

@Leon

hahaha solar panels for personal use are great! plus they're tax deductible: check it out. They can save you a LOT

what i'm referring to is the aggregate energy demand in America. The giant amounts of energy, produced and sold, is more efficient en masse with nuclear, then fossil fuels, then alternative.

Again Yanik, you provide no figure for this. Also I never said anything about tax deduction. There is no tax system anywhere in the world that taxes you for money you don't spend. That is why the return on investment is tax free.

in about 1997 there was a switch in terms of per capita distribution, but currently it's more cost efficient to keep our current systems,

i'll concede that alternative energy is the future, but to do a complete overhaul and replace fossil fuel energy with renewable energy, doesn't make economic sense.

And I'd rather dirt bag free riders pay up for their pollution

yes there are tax deductions
http://earth911.com/home-garden/major-green-tax-deductions/

Why do you think battery storage is coming online all around the world? It's cheaper to store power for peak times than build a new on demand power plant. The economics are shifting and you're not paying attention.

Actually, there is a pretty straightforward response to Yanik.

Yanik, you're a know nothing ignoramus!

If he tries to trot out aby more alternative facts just repeat that

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/solar-and-wind-power-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-for-the-first-time-a7509251.html

that was last month, but i swear that alternative energy has lower upkeep costs than fossil fuels, that's been true for a LONG time. The problem is deconstructing the entire fuel industry, replacing it with alternative, and transferring jobs.

@Leon
I just looked up the comments he made in favor of a carbon tax that you referenced and immediately found an article from 2009, so t was indeed a long time ago that he was advocating for such a policy. Both of my previous reasons for why he may have done this still stand.

If what you are saying is true, if it would replace the current cost inducing regulations and make it so the expenses of the firms do not go up, then that would be a completely different story. I still am not sure if I would support it, that would require a more in-depth analysis of it, but it would alleviate my concerns about it severely hampering the energy sector even more than it has already been.

@Ogion
I don't know whether a new electric car is cheaper than a new gas car, I would think not, but I''m not a car expert so I won't bother contesting that point. I can assure you though that a used gas car is cheaper than a new electric car and if you think the majority of people are out there buying new cars, you are mistaken. The average age of the typical person's car is 12 years old. It will take a while for those electric cars to become cheap enough on a used basis for them to be cost effective for the typical person.

In regards to producing electricity, you are simply wrong. Coal and gas are way cheaper than solar in terms of electricity generation. People keep trying to jump the gun on that, it's coming, but you have to be patient before you can make that claim, it hasn't happened yet.

"The problem is deconstructing the entire fuel industry, replacing it with alternative, and transferring jobs."

Yes, I agree. That is the problem. If only you had a president who wanted to make more US jobs.

Ogion muted me btw guys. he was making an argument and he never gave ANY sources. I made a record of it so he couldn't lie about it later

https://docs.google.com/document/d/12xNqkdz8NRTwQ079Ln8knOUpGI4TuVz1zZI8rkeEQq4/edit

Also

@LeonWalras

for the individual this holds VERY true, that creating a personalized energy system is good. you're addressing a single point on the demand curve, rather than the entire damn thing. The problem is not everyone can afford to have their own energy stockpiles. Thus businesses get involved. Demand may be changing, but can you link me to something showing it's overall effect? because from what i can see, the energy market doesn't seem to care about individuals getting solar panels all to much

@Manwe

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/solar-and-wind-power-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-for-the-first-time-a7509251.html

happening VERY soon. I don't like to speak before I've seen the data, but i'm fairly optimistic

@Leon
I haven't mentioned nuclear once, don't mix what I have said with what Yanik has said, you are then rebutting an imaginary individual.

I'll check out your source in a minute, Yanik.

@manwe

source to that article

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Renewable_Infrastructure_Investment_Handbook.pdf

@Manwe sorry for rebutting Yanik. I freely admit that he is most likely imaginary.

@Leon

"Not all of us can afford a nuclear power plant either, but calling them failed based on that alone is just plain silly. There are affordable ways to lease solar panels that still end up cheaper than grid energy. My point was in response to Yanik's claim that there is no economic case for renewables."

we're talking about two different things.

an individual can live off of solar panels, as of right now, large corporations cannot.

actually, i think that MIGHT have flipped. i'm not entirely sure though

sorry, by flipped i mean large corporations CAN now

I haven't read through the entire thing yet, but I would have a few questions about the way they have calculated the cost of each source. For solar, did they adjust to reflect that the price of silicon, a major component in solar panel production, is very low and only likely to increase over time? Did they adjust for the tax holidays/subsidies that solar companies are receiving by virtually every government? Did they adjust for the fact that most solar companies are selling at prices below cost because China is attempting to drive other country's solar companies out of business? And for coal, did they adjust for the excessive regulatory costs placed on coal manufacturers? Taking all of this into account, I am almost certain that coal/natural gas is still at least 33% cheaper than solar. Wind on the other hand is quite impressive, though I don't know as much about it and that cost figure could have been manipulated as well.

"@Manwe sorry for rebutting Yanik. I freely admit that he is most likely imaginary."
I have had this suspicion for quite some time now myself.

There are no conservative answers to anything. There are conservative responses.

@Manwe cost per gigawatt hour depends on a lot of factors, many of them geographical. In many places, coal is cheaper than renewables. in many other places, that is not the case.

The report as well as my own writings are in regards to the world wide average cost.

Lol. It isn't. Silicon, FYI, is sand. I don't see the price of that spiking

Also, you've left out the massive health care and environmental costs quite aside from the climate change impacts. Those "excessive regulations" aren't excessive enough, because even with them there are major external costs borne by society that the coal industry doesn't compensate us for and are this allowed to be free riders. The regulations will be adequate when the externalities are zero.

Of course you pulled your 33% number out of your ass in true conservative style. And that is why you have forfeited the right to be treated with anything other than derision and dismissiveness.

In reality, the level oxen cost of energy has hit grid parity in many instances and places and would be at grid parity or better everywhere if the externalities of fossil fuels were internalized.

@Manwe
"For solar, did they adjust to reflect that the price of silicon, a major component in solar panel production, is very low and only likely to increase over time?"

no they did not, though the same argument can be made for coal and oil

"Did they adjust for the tax holidays/subsidies that solar companies are receiving by virtually every government?"

bottom of page 4 on the left, though that is an anecdotal success. still, it shows that unsubsidized alt. energy can compete

"Did they adjust for the fact that most solar companies are selling at prices below cost because China is attempting to drive other country's solar companies out of business?"

you do realize that if they're measuring net profits for some of their graphics, so selling low would still show up in the red.

"And for coal, did they adjust for the excessive regulatory costs placed on coal manufacturers? Taking all of this into account, I am almost certain that coal/natural gas is still at least 33% cheaper than solar."

for creation i can agree with you, but the upkeep costs are generally less. secondly, unless all the world gov't are going to simultaneously repeal their fossil fuel restrictions, the reality we'd live in is that coal/NG is more expensive.

@Manwe

and i can't believe i'm saying this, but i agree with Ogion, can you give me evidence for your 33% claim?

also silicon is 27% of the earth's crust. so. um. i don't see that running out TOO soon

The average used car price in the US is a little over $16k. A 2012 LEAF prices out at $6k per edmunds


Another talking point dies