Alternative energy to become cheaper?

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/07/10/0128239/worlds-cheapest-energy-source-will-be-renewables-within-three-years

According to this source, even if Trump withdraws from the Paris accord, alternative energy sources will become cheaper.

What, and let the free market work?

Anarchists.

The source is wrong.

Renewable energy has long been the cheapest source.

Hydroelectricity has long been cheaper than just about any other source.
Next is probably geothermal power.
Wind has been cheaper than fossil fuels for the past several years, and solar beats fossil fuels in many situations.
Roof top solar is the cheapest for consumers, beating grid prices (and that has been true for a number of years).
Nuclear is sometimes categorized as a renewable, and it has been used by many countries but given that both fossil fuel power and nuclear are heavily subsidized its hard to know which is actually cheaper.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The source is wrong.

Renewable energy has long been the cheapest source.

Hydroelectricity has long been cheaper than just about any other source.
Next is probably geothermal power.
Wind has been cheaper than fossil fuels for the past several years, and solar beats fossil fuels in many situations.
Roof top solar is the cheapest for consumers, beat ...[text shortened]... fossil fuel power and nuclear are heavily subsidized its hard to know which is actually cheaper.

There you have it, Capitalism doesn't work because everyone chooses the more expensive fossil fuels.


If renewables actually are the cheapest form of energy everyone would be using it everywhere.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Roof top solar is the cheapest for consumers, beating grid prices (and that has been true for a number of years).

Only if you live in a blue state.

In Arizona (controlled by Republicans and Corporate interests), solar should be cheap as dirt (95% sunny days), in fact, people with solar should be earning money off of it.

But the power companies, SRP and APS, are charging customers with solar a fee for selling their excess energy back to the grid. The fee is big enough that those customers still end up paying for their electricity. If this continues, solar will NEVER be viable in Arizona, the one place in this country where it should be the most viable.

Originally posted by Eladar
There you have it, Capitalism doesn't work because everyone chooses the more expensive fossil fuels.


If renewables actually are the cheapest form of energy everyone would be using it everywhere.

You're messing with his conspiracy theories.

Originally posted by Eladar
There you have it, Capitalism doesn't work because everyone chooses the more expensive fossil fuels.


If renewables actually are the cheapest form of energy everyone would be using it everywhere.

This is the same kind of idiotic thinking that put Trump in the White House.

The more expensive fuels are subsidized out the butt while the least expensive fuels are riddled with fees. Corporate interests, aka greed, the end result of capitalism, will be the death of this country.

Originally posted by Eladar
There you have it, Capitalism doesn't work because everyone chooses the more expensive fossil fuels.


If renewables actually are the cheapest form of energy everyone would be using it everywhere.

We have been using hydroelectricity in Zambia since 1959. It remains almost exclusively our sole source of electricity and is cheaper than the electricity in South Africa which includes coal and nuclear.

As for Capitalism, it does NOT select for the cheapest source because of politics. Many countries, for example, try very hard not to be energy dependent on political rivals.

Originally posted by Suzianne
But the power companies, SRP and APS, are charging customers with solar a fee for selling their excess energy back to the grid. The fee is big enough that those customers still end up paying for their electricity. If this continues, solar will NEVER be viable in Arizona, the one place in this country where it should be the most viable.

Not true. Users can install batteries and not depend on feed back to the grid.

Originally posted by twhitehead
We have been using hydroelectricity in Zambia since 1959. It remains almost exclusively our sole source of electricity and is cheaper than the electricity in South Africa which includes coal and nuclear.

As for Capitalism, it does NOT select for the cheapest source because of politics. Many countries, for example, try very hard not to be energy dependent on political rivals.

I guess it has to do with your natural resources.

In the US solar has been subsidized by the frderal govrrnment for years, as has ethanol production, but natural gas is still cheaper.

Originally posted by Eladar
I guess it has to do with your natural resources.

Yes, obviously. If you don't have any rivers, hydro isn't going to work for you. Nevertheless, it provides almost 17% of the worlds electricity, so your earlier post suggesting otherwise was clearly misinformed.

In the US solar has been subsidized by the frderal govrrnment for years, as has ethanol production, but natural gas is still cheaper.
Ethanol production is subsidized because they have a massive farm lobby. Politics basically.

As for subsidies, the fossil fuel industry has historically received massive amounts and continues to do so:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#Allocation_of_subsidies_in_the_United_States

As for which is cheaper, I believe it depends very much on the exact situation. I suspect that solar is in fact cheaper in almost all localities in the US.
Do you have any actual evidence to back up your assertion to the contrary? (recent data).

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, obviously. If you don't have any rivers, hydro isn't going to work for you. Nevertheless, it provides almost 17% of the worlds electricity, so your earlier post suggesting otherwise was clearly misinformed.

[b]In the US solar has been subsidized by the frderal govrrnment for years, as has ethanol production, but natural gas is still cheaper.
...[text shortened]... e US.
Do you have any actual evidence to back up your assertion to the contrary? (recent data).[/b]

Suggest otherwise? Homey don't think so.

What I said earlier is that people try to buy the cheapest energy possible.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Not true. Users can install batteries and not depend on feed back to the grid.

But solar is so efficient because here we have SO much sun that even with a huge bank of batteries, there is still excess energy. Those who spend the time and money to 'go solar' SHOULD be able to sell this back to the grid without getting 'nickel and dimed' for it. Without this option, solar will go nowhere in Arizona, and that's how the energy corporations like it. They've given millions to lawmakers to ensure that things stay the same, i.e. benefitting them, not consumers.

Originally posted by Eladar
Suggest otherwise? Homey don't think so.

What I said earlier is that people try to buy the cheapest energy possible.

No, that is not what you said.

Originally posted by Suzianne
But solar is so efficient because here we have SO much sun that even with a huge bank of batteries, there is still excess energy. Those who spend the time and money to 'go solar' SHOULD be able to sell this back to the grid without getting 'nickel and dimed' for it.

I agree.

Without this option, solar will go nowhere in Arizona, and that's how the energy corporations like it.
I disagree. It won't be long before people realize that even without that option, solar is cheaper.

They've given millions to lawmakers to ensure that things stay the same, i.e. benefitting them, not consumers.
That's what happens when you allow money in politics. Most countries call that corruption, but in the US, its the norm.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I agree.

[b]Without this option, solar will go nowhere in Arizona, and that's how the energy corporations like it.
I disagree. It won't be long before people realize that even without that option, solar is cheaper.

They've given millions to lawmakers to ensure that things stay the same, i.e. benefitting them, not consumers.
That's what ...[text shortened]... n you allow money in politics. Most countries call that corruption, but in the US, its the norm.[/b]

What's the 'norm' in SA?