<a href="http://www.energypost.eu/fraunhofer-solar-power-will-cost-2-ctskwh-2050/" rel="nofollow">Cost Of Solar PV Will Fall To 2 Cents/kWh In 2050, Says Fraunhofer Study</a><blockquote>“In a few years, solar energy plants will deliver the most inexpensive power available in many parts of the world. By 2025, the cost of producing power in central and southern Europe will have declined to between 4 and 6 cents per kilowatt hour, and by 2050 to as low as 2 to 4 cents.” These are the main conclusions of a <a href="http://www.agora-energiewende.org/fileadmin/downloads/publikationen/Studien/PV_Cost_2050/AgoraEnergiewende_Current_and_Future_Cost_of_PV_Feb2015_web.pdf" rel="nofollow">study by the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems</a> commissioned by the German think tank Agora Energiewende. In view of these conclusions, “plans for future power supply systems should therefore be revised worldwide”, says Patrick Graichen, Director of Agora.</blockquote><blockquote>According to Agora Energiewende, which describes itself as “an independent German think tank dedicated to research on the future of the electrical power system”, the Fraunhofer study “uses only conservative assumptions about technological developments expected for solar energy. Technological breakthroughs could make electricity even cheaper, but these potential developments were not taken into consideration.”</blockquote>[...]<blockquote>According to the study, “most scenarios fundamentally underestimate the role of solar power in future energy systems.” The study shows “that solar energy has become cheaper much more quickly than most experts had predicted and will continue to do so,” says Dr. Patrick Graichen, Director of the Agora Energiewende in a press release. “<b>Plans for future power supply systems should therefore be revised worldwide. Until now, most of them only anticipate a small share of solar power in the mix. In view of the extremely favourable costs, solar power will on the contrary play a prominent role</b>, together with wind energy – also, and most importantly, as a cheap way of contributing to international climate protection.”</blockquote>
Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by AK
↧
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
JimD,which AGW hypothesis,, the doubling CO2 and abusing land will cause some warming, `1C per doubling of CO2 with possibly some water vapor amplification or the OMG we are doomed one? The known is that there is about 1.6C of warming per doubling expected from a 1900 to 1930 baseline, that would be Callandar, Arrhenius take two and Manabe. Both Calladar and Arrhenius thought it would be beneficial.
“captd, do you notice that the skeptics usually have to point to periods of no data to back up their various hypotheses?”
When you reference Arctic warming you are picking the the second worst region for data coverage. Skeptics noting that have an extremely valid point. When you reference Arctic warming and just wait ’til land water catches up you are using your last hail Mary. You need to prepare your graceful, “I guess it isn’t as bad as we thought.” exit so folks can get down to business.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Don Monfort
Your cheap trick won’t work, jimmy. You are trying to say the oceans aren’t warming, because the land is warming faster? Nobody has claimed that the land has warmed faster? The continents are also not devoid of water, jimmy. Tree got water. Bees got water. People got water. Have you ever heard of sweat and urination, jimmee? That’s all I can take of you mendacity for now, jimmy. You are not doing any good here.
↧
Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by AK
<blockquote><b>Key Insights at a Glance</b></blockquote><blockquote>1. Solar photovoltaics is already today a low-cost renewable energy technology.<blockquote>Cost of power from large scale photovoltaic installations in Germany fell from over 40 ct/kWh in 2005 to 9ct/kWh in 2014. Even lower prices have been reported in sunnier regions of the world, since a major share of cost components is traded on global markets.</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote>2. Solar power will soon be the cheapest form of electricity in many regions of the world.<blockquote>Even in conservative scenarios and assuming no major technological breakthroughs, an end to cost reduction is not in sight. Depending on annual sunshine, power cost of 4-6 ct/kWh are expected by 2025, reaching 2-4 ct/kWh by 2050 (conservative estimate).</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote>3. Financial and regulatory environments will be key to reducing cost in the future.<blockquote>Cost of hardware sourced from global markets will decrease irrespective of local conditions. However, inadequate regulatory regimes may increase cost of power by up to 50 percent through higher cost of finance. This may even overcompensate the effect of better local solar resources.</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote>4. Most scenarios fundamentally underestimate the role of solar power in future energy systems.<blockquote>Based on outdated cost estimates, most scenarios modeling future domestic, regional or global power systems foresee only a small contribution of solar power. The results of our analysis indicate that a fundamental review of cost-optimal power system pathways is necessary.</blockquote></blockquote>
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Jim D
I thought UHI was put to rest. Does permafrost respond to UHI?
↧
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Jim D
Don M, are you looking at the graph I posted and suggesting that the ocean is not warming? I don’t understand where you are arguing from. The ocean is the green line. See it goes up at the end? Not as fast as the red line.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
JimD, “I thought UHI was put to rest. Does permafrost respond to UHI?”
UHI is generally put to rest, there is an urban heat island effect but as far as the “global” mean surface temperature anomaly goes, it is insignificant. But then Global Mean Surface Temperature isn’t all that useful is it?
Land abuse though has similar warming issues related to changes in soil permeability, ground cover height which impacts soil temperature and water availability which impact soil and air temperature. UHI doesn’t impact permafrost but albedo darkening due to black carbon and erosion does.
In fact there is a huge surface temperature difference between close cropped pasture and well managed pasture with a corresponding hydrological cycle impact. btw, close cropped pasture was found to be the cause of one of those butterfly “extinctions” until the land use changed and the butterfly resurrected itself. Eli Rabbet called it the “suburban” heat island. One of the issues with long range interpolation and kriging is that those local, “suburban” effects are smeared when building a “global” temperature product so only irrigation impact “cooling” is noted while everything else is assumed to be AGW i.e. CO2 related. That is what happens when the consensus tells you where to look.
↧
Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by Peter Lang
Once again, you demonstrate your inability to do even basic reality checks. You believe anything that supports your beliefs.
<b>How do you justify advocating for solar and avoiding a serious, objective analysis of the nuclear power option?</b>
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by matthewrmarler
captdallas2: Until more data is available I believe the Kimoto style ratio based on effective temperature and energy is as good as it gets.
That has at least as many dubious simplifications as what I wrote, plus the assumption that climate sensitivity is constant. If one of these calculations proves to get the first significant figure with no more than 25% error I shall be surprised. I do agree with you that variations in regional and seasonal responses to temperature increase and forcing increase may make the calculation of the overall effects impossible from aggregates like global surface mean temperature and global total evapotranspirative surface cooling. However, lots of writers treat the global statistical summaries as though their use gets results that are accurate “to the first order.”
↧
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Danny Thomas
Short memory?
One example: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169809515000988
https://criticalangleblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/emm5.jpg?w=660&h=517
The raw Melbourne temperature records of the Bureau of Meteorology are compared to the ACORN-Sat values. The ACORN-Sat adjustments are evaluated. This analysis shows evidence for a strong urban heat island effect.http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/22/taking-melbournes-temperature/
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Pat Cassen
You’re skimming abstracts, Don (April 11, 2015 at 7:13 pm), and it shows. We’ll let serious readers decide, eh?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by John Vonderlin
Dr. Curry,
In regards to: “Warm blog in ocean linked to weird weather across US.” While I’ve noticed a lot of hot air at warmist blogs, I’m kind of skeptical they have anything to do with our weird weather.
On the other hand, the warm blob of water off our coast might be linked to a slew of oddities I’ve noticed during my regular coastal monitoring in the last year. The saddest is the tidal wave of abandoned, starving or starved-to -death pinniped pups I’ve been finding. Last Fall I found a Spiny Lobster molt, a species whose range is generally limited to several hundred miles south and has never been reported locally. Finding a number of dead Wolf Eels, (a fish) over a few week period last Fall was also unique in my personal(but extensive) experience. As were the two clusters of beached Pyrosomes (think French Ticklers) that I encountered this Spring. Last week’s landings of millions of Velella Velella, (By-the-Wind Sailors) while not unique, are rare along the Bay Area’s coast. The beaching of a few squid egg cases is also rare, but the regurgitation of untold thousands at Neptune’s Vomitorium yesterday is unique.
Whether it’s the loopy wind patterns of the jetstream, a lack of coastal upwelling, the unusually warm surface waters,(think 57 degrees, not actually warm) the Ridiculously Resilient Ridge squatting on top of us, God’s Wrath for our liberal ways, or warmist blogs’ hyperventilation, I can’t say, but there can be no doubt that Nature has offered up a strange stew of events for us to ponder the cause of.
I personally wouldn’t mind the coming of a “supercalifragilistic” El Nino event, even if it meant sacrificing the best weather I’ve experienced in California in the half century plus I’ve been here, and the sense of wonder I feel when I observe these rare oddities.
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by kim
Thanks for the cheshire cat link. Ah, how illiberal the liberals have become.
===============
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by justinwonder
Desal – Yep, that’s where the water is! In our local itty bitty city by the sea enviro-wackos teamed-up with a gaggle of other special interests to take desal off the table. The two biggest issues were the global warming that the energy use of desal would cause and the price. Cheapskates, water wasters, and environuts joined hands. Kumbayah! It will be back soon.
↧
Comment on Climate change availability cascade by NW
Matthew, I should’ve addressed your question about the concept being operationally defined. It is, and makes very specific predictions; but the conditions under which it makes those specific predictions can really only be known to hold–or not hold–in a controlled laboratory setting. Over the years I have discussed or refereed several laboratory studies of informational cascades, and my frank opinion is that the theory predicts a little bit better than a couple of straw alternatives. Not a ringing endorsement.
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Brandon C
“Or anthro.co2 was responsible for .19 degrees of .45 degrees.”
This line should not be in there. Need an edit feature.
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by jim2
It appears to use a heat exchanger, a vacuum, what appears to be a centrifugal device, and reverse osmosis. All are old tech.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by jim2
Centrifuges like this have been used by the chemical industry for decades.
http://www.tema.net/liquid-solid-separating-centrifuges.html
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Danny Thomas
OT of politics, but I’m assuming caused by G.W. :http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Forecasts/2015/apr2015/apr2015.pdf
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by justinwonder
Every commissioner on the California Public Utility Commision has been appointed by Governor Jerry (Moonbeam) Brown. The president of the commissioners was the Governor’s Senior Advisor for Renewable Energy for many years. PG&E does what the Commision tells it to do, and since they make money in every scenario they don’t care or are smart enough kiss Gov. Brown’s … The deck is stacked. We are hosed.
The President of the CPUC, from their website:
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/aboutus/Commissioners/Picker/index.htm
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
