Random energy info · 2:59pm Sep 8th, 2014
Just found this out: the cost of various energy sources without government subsidies (in US dollars). IE, the "real levelized costs."
$3.79 Conventional Coal
$4.37 Clean Coal
$5.61 Natural Gas
$5.94 Nuclear
$6.64 Wind
$18.82 Solar Thermal
$37.39 Solar Photovoltaic
Just thought this was interesting. Alarming, considering everyone's obsession with solar and wind power lately, but interesting all the same. I was actually rather surprised by the comparative cost of wind and solar to nuclear, and actually disappointed by the high cost of solar. Damn shame, that. Solar power has a lot potential (though it isn't sufficiently realized with today's technology) as an industrial level power source.
Wind turbines can burn in Hell, for all I care.
...Dunno why, but I've been on an energy/meteorology kick lately (thus, part of the reason for the ongoing pause in my work 
). There's a lot of interesting stuff on those subjects. Example: Volkswagen now has a car that can go 260 miles on less than one gallon of diesel fuel, with an additional all-electric range of 50 miles. It's only flaw is the $146,000 price tag, which probably nullifies any savings on gas unless you drive the ever loving shit out of it. Still, the fact that we have the tech for that kind of car is amazing.
Dayum solar power!
2437905
It's ironic, really. Of all the sources on here aside from nuclear, solar power has the greatest potential as an industrial-level source. Wind power is a complete and utter failure, and has been from the start. Coal and Natural Gas are very effective, efficient, and (if the proper measures are taken) quite clean, but they've reached a plateau of effectiveness/efficiency and we'll eventually outgrow them. Solar power, on the other hand, could be immensely useful if solar panels were to be placed in low orbit, permanently facing the sun, with the technology required to "beam" energy down to Earth. Only nuclear surpasses it in terms of potential power.
I was somewhat surprised by the numbers, but not very much, really. After all, solar panels are flippin' expensive and quite inefficient, so what would you expect? And if you try to place them on orbit and "beam" the energy down, the cost will skyrocket even further.
2438576
Yes, yes they will. However, under those circumstances, the energy they provide will be, for all intents and purposes, free. So the initial expense is ultimately 99% of the price.
But that technology is a long way out. What we're doing now with solar panels is just plain stupid. Solar power in-atmosphere will never be a sustainable power source. Most of the supposed inefficiency of solar power is because the atmosphere absorbs so much damn energy that only a fraction of it ends up reaching the surface.
2438722
Well, that is not the case, they are inefficient by their very nature. Efficiency of the best solar panels is about 17%, if i recall correctly? Maybe 30% maximum. Now, if you put those on orbit, then eficciency becomes this, minus whatever amount of energy is lost while being beamed down.
2441506
A solar panel in the mid-northern or southern hemisphere, during the summer of said hemisphere, has an efficiency of 17%. A solar panel at the equator, during a sunny day, has an efficiency of about 30%. A solar panel in orbit, however, has an efficiency of 70% - 80% if I recall correctly. And little of it would be lost from beaming it down to Earth. That's kinda the nature of lasers: they go a long way through just about any medium while losing very little energy.
You forgot Hydro, which is the best of them all.
hydro.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/affordable_graph01.jpg
I think that the reason why those "alternate" sources of energy are so high is because they are still really in their "beta phase" as sources of everyday power systems. Coal and other fossil fuels have infrastructure in place and the backing of corporations that go back nearly two centuries. In time, new energy sources, such as those described here and more, will become more sustainable in the economic sense as the demand for energy goes up.
2449394
That's really only part of the reason, as far as what I've been reading. Another part is the exceedingly rare (and toxic) metals used to build solar panels and wind turbines (moreso the first than the second). China has a monopoly on the mining and refining of several of said metals (simply because its so dangerous that no one else wants to do it), which drives up the price. Considering the massive amount of panels and turbines needed to even begin to be competitive with even a single coal-fired, natural gas, geothermal, or hydro plant, thus requiring massive amounts of rare earth metals, I doubt the cost will fall any time soon. In fact, IIRC the price is actually getting higher.