25 Apr '14 19:55>5 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brainwho are you talking to? If me, what is it that you want to prove? is it
Prove it.
""this would be cost effective thanks to advances in renewable technology."?
if so, OK:
http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=3479
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_debate
"... wind, water and solar power can be scaled up in cost-effective ways to meet our energy demands, freeing us from dependence on both fossil fuels and nuclear power. In 2009 they published "A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet With Renewables" in Scientific American. The article addressed a number of issues, such as the worldwide spatial footprint of wind turbines, the availability of scarce materials needed for manufacture of new systems, the ability to produce reliable energy on demand and the average cost per kilowatt hour. A more detailed and updated technical analysis has been published as a two-part article in the journal Energy Policy.[19]
..."
Also, if renewables where simply not cost effective, there would be few renewables used today. And yet renewables make up a significant proportion of the would production of energy:
http://www.energies-renouvelables.org/observ-er/html/inventaire/Eng/conclusion.asp
"...The 2012 renewable share in the world's electricity mix was 20.8%, compared to 19.9% in 2011 and 18.3% in 2002...."
also:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/debunking-myths-about-nuclear-fuel-coal-wind-solar-9
"...Solar panels are certainly expensive—about $100 per square foot for a typical installation—but eventually, you're destined to end up on the positive side of the equation.
According to the California Solar Electric Company, it may take from eight to 12 years to recoup in saved energy costs the investment put into a basic residential photovoltaic (PV) solar array. But this estimate varies greatly depending on factors like the size of the array and the amount of sunlight that hits it, and advances in PV technology continue to shorten the payback period.
"The shortest payback with new thin-film cells is less than a year," says Burr Zimmerman, a chemical engineer and co-founder of the Kairos Institute, which ushers new technologies into the marketplace. Thanks to ramped-up production and cheaper materials, up-front costs continue to plummet as well; the price of solar cells has fallen fifteenfold since 1980.
After a solar array's initial payback period, you start to reap some serious financial benefits. Assuming solar cells have an average life expectancy of 30 years, more than 50 percent of the power solar cells generate ends up being free. "There are maintenance issues," Zimmerman says, but over time, "solar cells are definitely making you money."
..."
OK, explain how it is impossible for renewables to be cost effective if a solar panel can pay for itself in less than a year....
also, the solar panel technology is improving all the time and is becoming cheaper and more energy efficient all the time.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/debunking-myths-about-nuclear-fuel-coal-wind-solar-9
"...the price of solar cells has fallen fifteenfold since 1980...."
So, Obviously, it will be just a matter of time before virtually ALL solar panels built will pay for themselves in less than a year and become cheaper in every way than burning fossil fuels to generate electricity.
Is that enough proof for you? or are you going to always demand more?