Renewable Energy Doing So Well That Subsidies Could End: Energy Secretary Moniz

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

GRA

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
14,018
Location
East side of San Francisco Bay
Via GCR:
Renewable Energy Doing So Well That Subsidies Could End: Energy Secretary Moniz
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1099795_renewable-energy-doing-so-well-that-subsidies-could-end-energy-secretary-moniz

. . . The head of the U.S. Department of Energy now believes renewable energy is doing well enough that subsidies could end.

Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz now believes renewable energy can be cost-competitive with fossil fuels, even without subsidies, reports the Washington Examiner.

On a call with reporters earlier this week, Moniz said the Obama Administration supports an extension of tax credits for solar, but that he believes the industry could continue to grow without them.

He said recent cost reductions in the solar industry have "been incredible." Moniz expects the cost of a rooftop solar panel to quickly fall by [GRA: to?] 6 cents per kilowatt-hour, which he claims would make solar "extremely competitive" with natural gas and grid-based electricity sources.

A report released by the Department of Energy earlier this month also claims that the cost of wind power is falling, and that wind-generated electricity could soon become cost-competitive with more traditional sources as well.

It claims wind-power prices dropped from 7 cents per kWh in 2009, to 2.35 cents per kWh in 2014.

The drop is attributed to lower wind-turbine prices and installation costs for wind-farm projects, and anticipated increases in production capacity.

For its part, though, the wind-energy industry hopes that subsidies continue

The American Wind Energy Association trade group says that the success of wind energy varies in different parts of the country, and that steady incentives are still needed to make it viable everywhere.

The industry needs "stable, predictable policy" to continue at its current rate of growth, Tom Kiernan--American Wind Energy Association CEO--said earlier this month.

Congress allowed wind tax credits to expire at the end of 2014, but this summer the Senate Finance Committee passed a measure that would temporarily reinstate some form of wind-energy tax credits.

However, it did not address solar tax credits, which are set to phase out at the end of next year.
What a surprise, that an industry getting subsidies would want to keep them, regardless of whether they still need them :roll: . I really hope it's time to end the subsidies.
 
Juliet Davenport, chief executive of Good Energy, said: “The proposed cuts mean that installing solar panels at home will no longer be attractive to British families.”
At 52 degrees north latitude with plenty of cloudy days, I don't find that entirely surprising.

I'm fine with ending the subsidies here, given our advantageous geography, but would prefer phasing them out over a couple more years as opposed to dropping them cold turkey.
 
abasile said:
Juliet Davenport, chief executive of Good Energy, said: “The proposed cuts mean that installing solar panels at home will no longer be attractive to British families.”
At 52 degrees north latitude with plenty of cloudy days, I don't find that entirely surprising.

I'm fine with ending the subsidies here, given our advantageous geography, but would prefer phasing them out over a couple more years as opposed to dropping them cold turkey.
The big issue is that PV was ever subsidized in NW Europe at all, when every country bordering the North Sea or Baltic has good to excellent wind resources, but poor to awful solar. PV has come down in price a lot, but barring dramatic CC they're never going to have decent insolation.
 
Via GCC:
BNEF: wind and solar boost cost-competitiveness versus fossil fuels
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/10/20151006-bnef.html

This year has brought a significant shift in the generating cost comparison between renewable energy and fossil fuels, according to detailed analysis by technology and region, published this week by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The levelized cost of electricity analysis for H2 2015 shows onshore wind to be fully competitive against gas and coal in some parts of the world, while solar is closing the gap.

The research company’s Levelized Cost of Electricity Update for the second half of 2015, based on thousands of data points related to individual deals and projects around the world, shows that onshore wind and crystalline silicon photovoltaics—the two most widespread renewable technologies—have both reduced costs this year, while costs have gone up for gas-fired and coal-fired generation.

The BNEF study shows that the global average levelized cost of electricity, or LCOE, for onshore wind nudged downwards from $85 per megawatt-hour in the first half of the year, to $83 in H2, while that for crystalline silicon PV solar fell from $129 to $122.

In the same period, the LCOE for coal-fired generation increased from $66 per MWh to $75 in the Americas, from $68 to $73 in Asia-Pacific, and from $82 to $105 in Europe. The LCOE for combined-cycle gas turbine generation rose from $76 to $82 in the Americas, from $85 to $93 in Asia-Pacific and from $103 to $118 in EMEA. . . .

Among other low-carbon energy technologies, offshore wind reduced its global average LCOE from $176 per MWh, to $174, but still remains significantly more expensive than wind, solar PV, coal or gas, while biomass incineration saw its levelized cost stay steady at $134 per MWh.

Nuclear, like coal and gas, has very different LCOE levels from one region of the world to another, but both the Americas and the Europe, Middle East and Africa region saw increases in levelized costs, to $261 and $158 per MWh respectively.

Among the country-level findings of the BNEF study are that onshore wind is now fully cost-competitive with both gas-fired and coal-fired generation, once carbon costs are taken into account, in the UK and Germany. In the UK, onshore wind comes in on average at $85 per MWh in the second half of 2015, compared to $115 for combined-cycle gas and $115 for coal-fired power; in Germany, onshore wind is at $80, compared to $118 for gas and $106 for coal.

In China, onshore wind is cheaper than gas-fired power, at $77 per MWh versus $113, but it is much more expensive still than coal-generated electricity, at $44, while solar PV power is at $109. In the US, coal and gas are still cheaper, at $65 per MWh, against onshore wind at $80 and PV at $107. . . .
 
GRA said:
What a surprise, that an industry getting subsidies would want to keep them, regardless of whether they still need them :roll: . I really hope it's time to end the subsidies.
I assume you are talking about the longest and biggest beneficiaries of subsidies--fossil fuels.
 
Stoaty said:
GRA said:
What a surprise, that an industry getting subsidies would want to keep them, regardless of whether they still need them :roll: . I really hope it's time to end the subsidies.
I assume you are talking about the longest and biggest beneficiaries of subsidies--fossil fuels.
That was a while back (Have you been considering your reply all this time? :D ), but I was talking about all industries that got government handouts and were loathe to give them up, even when they no longer needed them. Seems the PV/wind industries have now moved beyond the 'plucky little upstarts' phase, and have now become just another big business. Inevitable with success, but I do sometimes pine for the days when being a member of AWEA or SEIA meant you knew most of the people in the industry.
 
GRA said:
That was a while back (Have you been considering your reply all this time? :D)
No, just noticed it.

but I was talking about all industries that got government handouts and were loathe to give them up, even when they no longer needed them. Seems the PV/wind industries have now moved beyond the 'plucky little upstarts' phase, and have now become just another big business.
I would favor looking at that question once all subsidies for fossil fuels are stopped. Until then, the subsidies level the playing field somewhat. Since climate change is my biggest concern, I don't mind a subsidy that helps us address that looming disaster.
 
It seems to me that we have a long way to go in getting renewable energy broadly distributed. Removing the subsidies would likely slow the adoption rate which I believe would be a huge mistake to make.

IMO, oil subsidies should be cut. But renewable subsidies should continue until oil/coal/gas are the niche markets and the renewables dominate. Ideally the savings from cutting the oil subsidies should be plowed into further renewable incentives.

Opposing big business involvement is counter productive if the objective is to actually get renewable energy broadly deployed.

The only caveat for keeping the oil subsidies is that we are still sadly dependent on oil. As such, major disruptions in the international supply/demand balances can pose a serious national security/economic risk.
 
I've come to the opinion that instead of direct subsidies for renewables, the best, most market based approach would be to put a price on carbon, i.e., a revenue-neutral carbon tax where the proceeds are refunded uniformly across our population. Fundamentally, when considering all of the societal costs of burning fossil fuels, it should cost more to do so. The net effect on the economy would be positive because a revenue-neutral tax generally does not take money out of the economy, and because resources that are currently employed at resource extraction would be redirected to activities that are more productive in the long run.
 
abasile said:
I've come to the opinion that instead of direct subsidies for renewables, the best, most market based approach would be to put a price on carbon, i.e., a revenue-neutral carbon tax where the proceeds are refunded uniformly across our population. Fundamentally, when considering all of the societal costs of burning fossil fuels, it should cost more to do so. The net effect on the economy would be positive because a revenue-neutral tax generally does not take money out of the economy, and because resources that are currently employed at resource extraction would be redirected to activities that are more productive in the long run.
That's generally my take, although the studies I've seen indicate that only a fairly high carbon tax (something well over $100/ton) would have any significant impact.
 
I'm having trouble visualizing how a revenue neutral tax would actually work. I don't believe there are enough politicians with the willpower to resist spending any tax they can get their hands on for it to work. Getting the tax in place is doable, but it will not be distributed back to the population. This reminds me of how the bottle and can recycling deposits got started. But states soon realized that only a portion of the cans and bottles got returned and they could pocket the difference into their general fund to support their bloated spending. And now those deposits are steadily increasing....

However, carbon taxes can work quite effectively. There is a reason that cars in Europe are smaller and more fuel efficient than the US. The super sized SUV seems rather rare over there, at least from what I've seen the handful of times I've been there. Thanks to much higher gasoline taxes, their gas costs are much higher and this causes people to buy cars much more rationally. I also think I recall hearing that they have some hefty taxes based on engine displacement, which can have a similar desirable effect - people buy smaller engines which tend to also be more fuel efficient.
 
Back
Top