Strikes me that reality will inevitably show up in the recognition that: (1) visions of man-caused-climate-catastrophe are simply untrue (i.e. natural forces dominate the climate, not man) and (2) the folks cannot afford to bankroll "green energy" (i.e. the middle-class has been bled dry). Subsidies for renewable energy will be removed because governments have run out of other people's money.
The future will be based on the rational deployment of competitive power on an "as-needed" basis, not dogma based contrivances. To the extent that "green energy" is cost effective, then it will be used when needed. Ditto for any other forms of energy.
What complete and arrogant nonsense.
Has it ever occurred to you that man-kind would never have existed without fossil fuels? Has it ever occurred to you that the climate always changes?
To equate the use of fossil fuels to "causing" dire changes to the climate is without proper scientific support. Rather, we have dogma replacing logic and careful analysis.
Successful for whom? Not the consumers who are forced to bankroll "green energy" that is not needed, too expensive and based on a hysterical overreaction to deeply flawed climate models.
The government has a long and expensive history of picking losers. The ever growing list includes all types of industries and technologies, including nuclear energy, solar, wind, and many, many more. We are talking billions-and-billions of dollars being poured down the drain on dopey stuff that make no economic sense.
ARPA is just another massive waste of taxpayer money, being primarily used to: (1) bankroll the current regimes latest "politically correct" industries (that would be renewable energy) and (2) payback political donors.
Not too surprising a university type is touting "government" innovation, considering academia more or less wallows in the pig-trough of government supplied money.
Government is ponderous, given largely to political quid pro-qua and pay-to-play schemes while being populated by bureaucrats handing out other peoples money. A near perfect recipe for waste and incompetence on a vast scale.
The last place an entrepreneur should ever consider working is the government; the environment is absolutely toxic to free and logical thinking.
Seems to me, the use of "political appointees" to run the government agencies (like the DOE) is a major cause of mischief. The more fiendish problem is the movement well away from the original charters of providing R&D support and getting directly into technology implementation efforts. This is an area where the government is just plain incompetent, being properly left to the free-market where the forces of competition weed out the good from the just plain dumb.
"Levelized-cost" is an easily manipulated number and is not particularly relevant to real world financing where near-term payback is critical. The "guess" as to costs over 30 or 40 years is more-or-less useless, as the risks of the unknown becomes progressively higher.
A better measurement method is "overnight cost" which gives you the unvarnished real world cost as it exists right now.
Seems to me anybody who thinks they can set "policy" for the distant future is an idiot. As we have seen repeatedly, technology is unpredictable, with a remarkable ability to "pull-rabbits-out-of-the-hat" that subsequently completely upend prevailing conventional wisdom.
Strikes me there is something fundamentally corrupt with the renewable energy mindset.
On one hand, folks want to be able to generate their own power and make money by selling it to everybody else. Seems reasonable. But these same folks want everybody else to insure (and pay for) power being instantly available if a cloud shows up or the sun goes down. Further, the renewable energy mindset considers it perfectly OK to create voltage/frequency variations in other folk's power supplies with the other folks incurring costs to deal with the issue.
There is a solution. With today's digital meters, pretty easy to identify what goes in and what goes out. Pay the real-time market price for what occurs. That would include occasionally paying money for unneeded power stuffed onto the grid.
The entire “green movement” is based on a hysterical over reaction to climate models that are clearly faulty – the models fail to predict reality. Consistent with a fundamental lack of integrity, the “green-mafia” is now trying to scare the population with deliberate distortions concerning natural gas.
As usual, the renewable energy community is completely out of touch with reality. Simple back-of-the-envelope calculations demonstrate the utter nonsense of 100% renewable, unless everyone likes living in a 3rd world country. The practical physical limits of harvesting enough energy to meet our needs quickly demonstrate we run out of land (unless of course we remove most of the population from the planet).
Further, the underpinning of "zero-carbon" is complete nonsense. The trace gas CO2 is not going to destroy civilization. Please note that mankind would not exist without the fossil energy.
The big question is: Why would anyone in their right mind even contemplate 100% renewable energy?
The Germans build a large number of small, expensive power plants/machines that they never needed in the 1st place. Worse yet, the power from these plants/machines is both unreliable and intermittent.
Obviously the price of power must rise, with the hapless consumer taking the hit in the wallet. The "Greens" statements are complete nonsense.
So how big a reduction in CO2 emissions did the Germans achieve? Actually, it went up.
Better for whom? Those small in number employed in non-competitive industries or the general population forced to subsidize them?
Competition and innovation are the keys to healthy economies.
I think a more accurate title for the article would be "Solar PV Expands Quickly When States Provide Developers Direct Access to Consumers Wallet"