"Wind and wave energies are not renewable after all"

Capt'n Midnight · 11-08-2012 3:54am

SeanW wrote: »

I'm sure they're in order. Doesn't change the fact that the Green Party is far from objective.

Well if you agree that a reference that says fossil fuel is being subsidised to the tune of $500 bn is in order.

About the "load balancing" stuff, I have two questions/comments:
During the anti-cyclone of 2010, my family and I lost our oil fired central heating, we had to turn on everything electric (oven, multiple electric heaters and the immersion and pour large amounts of fuel into the fireplace to stop from freezing over, as temperatures plunged to below -15C. Power demand surged over the end of that December as wind speeds dropped to a dead calm over the period of the anti-cyclone.

just as well freak weather events don't happen every year eh ?

we'd only have enough demand for a 1 GW reactor as our summer valley is less than 1.5GW Having this go off line would be like your boiler failing. In order to have a 1GW reactor you would need 1GW on standby with all the subsidies that entails. With wind you can predict the weather far enough in advance to make alternative arrangements. Wind just doesn't fail suddenly , unless there is a transmission problem and even then you only loose one windfarm.

How much will the French be spending on backup systems for their reactors ? They built them in pairs on the basis that the other one could supply cooling power if there was a problem with one of them. It's the constant litany of such basic gotcha's that scare me about nuclear.

Finally, how much of this nonsense do you think these industry owners would put up with before deciding "This crap is Reason #236 to pack up and feck off to India?"

9% of the world's population lost electricity there recently.

I've made no secret of which I prefer - I'm primarily opposed to traditional thermal power and think we've got it wrong.

No. You are consistently against wind power on the basis of their performance in extreme weather events.

As you pointed out there was an oil shock in 1973. This could happen again with fossil fuel. It could also happen with nuclear especially since the demand for the fuel is very low compared to what it would be if everyone adopted it. Peak Uranium anyone ?

Also compared to fossil fuel and renewables there has been little improvement in nuclear power in the last 50 years.

we have 40Kw/m of wave power off our west coast. And while it's generated by wind it doesn't happen at the same time.

NI have plans for 300MW of tidal in the next few years. And yes it's not constant and some tides are higher than others, but it is predictable in exactly the same way as having to take yet another nuke off line because there was a cock-up during planning/construction ( earthquake shield backwards / advanced corrosion / no backup generators / fuel rod problems )

SeanW · 11-08-2012 8:36pm

Waestrel wrote: »

A good mix of renewables - wind, wave, tidal , and if possible for irish geology - geothermal. This when mixed with some microgeneration, smart metering, supergrids ( all of which we will see in the next 20 years) , and increased domestic efficiency will make us energy independent and leaves fission power as a failed dream of the 1950's, where it should stay.

I wonder if you feel the same way about fossil fuels?

djpbarry wrote:

I’m reaching for my mod hat here – nobody has argued that renewables are the silver bullet. Stop constructing straw men.

What was that about how "nobody has argued that renewables are the silver bullet"

Waestrel has just explicited said they are, and of course we have Capt'nMidnight going on about windmills and demand management. Please remind me how I'm building a straw man ...

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Well if you agree that a reference that says fossil fuel is being subsidised to the tune of $500 bn is in order.

I had a quick glance at the NRDC report, much of that is in the developing world (does that include India and China?) where the local populations cannot afford market prices for fuel.

just as well freak weather events don't happen every year eh ?

We had a bad winter in 2010 and Germany had a nasty anti-cyclone in 2011.

The point is that these things happen, and you have to have lots of reliable power plants if you want to keep the lights on and the heaters working, and nothing you say or do will change that.

Unless you think a failed grid and people dying of hypothermia is a good thing

Wind just doesn't fail suddenly , unless there is a transmission problem and even then you only loose one windfarm.

Wind output can vary wildly even within a day.

It's the constant litany of such basic gotcha's that scare me about nuclear.

At least that's better than the RADIATIONS GONNA EAT MY CHILDREN that the environmental left spews and that I once - to my eternal shame - bought hook line and sinker.

9% of the world's population lost electricity there recently.

I think you missed the point (on purpose?) but you might have noticed over the last ~25 years the Asians, chiefly the Indians and the Chinese have been kicking our asses economically.

How do you propose to retain what remains of Europe's industrial base when you dump this demand management crap on them? Would you care to answer my questions about such industries AND THEIR STAFF! that I raised in my last post?

No. You are consistently against wind power on the basis of their performance in extreme weather events.

No. I am consistently against seeing windmills as silver bullets. Their performance in extreme weather just drove the point home to me that they are not perfect and are at best an independent question in national energy policy.

As you pointed out there was an oil shock in 1973. This could happen again with fossil fuel. It could also happen with nuclear especially since the demand for the fuel is very low compared to what it would be if everyone adopted it. Peak Uranium anyone ?

As I said, I support the use of reprocessed fuel, that would make Ireland's hypothetical program very fuel-efficient. Thanks to that pinhead Jimmy Carter, the United States does NOT reprocess its fuel, and as such they waste most of it - though I suspect that might change in time. At minimum, the fuel they're presently wasting could be reused in the future.

we have 40Kw/m of wave power off our west coast. And while it's generated by wind it doesn't happen at the same time.

Waves are primarily generated by the pull of the moon.

NI have plans for 300MW of tidal in the next few years. And yes it's not constant and some tides are higher than others, but it is predictable

I would be the first to celebrate if it were to be shown that neither nuclear nor fossil fuels were needed long term. But the evidence is very thin.

djpbarry wrote: »

The Green Party is solely responsible for the lack of nuclear generation in Ireland? I had no idea they were so influential.

The Green Party arose out of the Carnsore Point protests.

Waestrel · 11-08-2012 8:51pm

Waves are primarily generated by the pull of the moon.

When you say things like this I feel that your knowledge is not as broad as you think it is.

SeanW · 11-08-2012 8:57pm

Waestrel wrote: »

When you say things like this I feel that your knowledge is not as broad as you think it is.

Oops, it's tides that are controlled by the moon, not so much waves. I stand corrected.

Capt'n Midnight · 11-08-2012 9:50pm

[QUOTE=SeanW;80183827 What was that about how "nobody has argued that renewables are the silver bullet"

Waestrel has just explicited said they are, and of course we have Capt'nMidnight going on about windmills and demand management. Please remind me how I'm building a straw man ...[/quote]Wind and demand management ... you quoted a post in which I also mentioned Wave and Tidal power
aren't you forgetting about me mentioning interconnectors all the time ?

The point is that these things happen, and you have to have lots of reliable power plants if you want to keep the lights on and the heaters working, and nothing you say or do will change that.

like you say lots of reliable plants - not the single point of failure a 1GW reactor would be to our grid.

Wind output can vary wildly even within a day.

Eirgrid have figures for predicted and actual wind power. Please tell us how much they are out by.

I think you missed the point (on purpose?) but you might have noticed over the last ~25 years the Asians, chiefly the Indians and the Chinese have been kicking our asses economically.

How do you propose to retain what remains of Europe's industrial base when you dump this demand management crap on them? Would you care to answer my questions about such industries AND THEIR STAFF! that I raised in my last post?

Please explain how their industry functioned during their recent power cuts, please pay particular attention to places with electrical furnaces in addition to the call centres

manufacturing margins are so low that for some companies in the UK not using electricity at peak times can be more profitable than manufacturing

No. I am consistently against seeing windmills as silver bullets. Their performance in extreme weather just drove the point home to me that they are not perfect and are at best an independent question in national energy policy.

No one else is suggesting they are silver bullets - and this is pointed out to you on a weekly basis. What we are pointing out is that they are low hanging fruit in a world where fuel costs are increasing

As I said, I support the use of reprocessed fuel, that would make Ireland's hypothetical program very fuel-efficient.

I'll mention the naughty word again - economics.

It's much easier to use a CANDU reactor in the first place than try to reprocess the fuel.

And please don't mention breeder reactors as if the worked. Superphénix had a lifetime load factor of less than 8% and there have been no commercial ones since it shut down in '98

I would be the first to celebrate if it were to be shown that neither nuclear nor fossil fuels were needed long term. But the evidence is very thin.

in a word - geothermal

please compare the cost of nuclear waste disposal with geothermal

SeanW · 13-08-2012 1:54am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

like you say lots of reliable plants

I'm glad we're clear about that. Now, what should those plants be? Fossil fuels? Peat? Or the evil N word?

not the single point of failure a 1GW reactor would be to our grid.

My preference would be for some sort of small nuclear system like the Toshiba 4S, likely a smorgasbord of 50MW units nationwide.

Please explain how their industry functioned during their recent power cuts, please pay particular attention to places with electrical furnaces in addition to the call centres

Are we just getting into Silly Season here?

I should think the answer to that question is quite obvious.

manufacturing margins are so low that for some companies in the UK not using electricity at peak times can be more profitable than manufacturing

Are you suggesting the manufacturers be PAID not to manufacture during peak hours/low wind? How much? What would the subsidy cover?

Also would you care to outline what effect your scheme would have on factory workers as I queried above?

Windfarm pic

I found that funny because as I was growing up listeneing to the environmental left, that's kinda what I thought nuclear plants were going to do.

I no longer believe this, which is why I no longer pay attention to the environmental-left.

It's much easier to use a CANDU reactor in the first place than try to reprocess the fuel.

Another good idea.

And please don't mention breeder reactors as if the worked. Superphénix had a lifetime load factor of less than 8% and there have been no commercial ones since it shut down in '98

Correct, but the Indians are working on some sort of Thorium breeder thing, with any luck they'll nail it.

in a word - geothermal

please compare the cost of nuclear waste disposal with geothermal

This is Ireland not Iceland. We don't really have any geothermal resources to speak of, there's a little bit underground heat in the Newcastle area of Soutwest Dublin/Eastern Kildare that I read some power company is building a plant on, but that's about it, at least within the first 4 miles underground or so. Technically and geologically, geothermal in Ireland is about as viable as a nuclear EPR on every street corner.

Cpt_Blackbeard · 13-08-2012 4:11am

Just a question for wholeheartedly pro-nuclear, anti-renewables crowd:

What do you propose we do while we are waiting for our nuclear reactors and plants to be built? The last time I saw any details (pre Fukushima) on waiting lists for the production of small 3rd generation reactors, it was lying at around the 20 year mark. That would be twenty more years where we are largely reliant on fossil fuels and their associated environmental impacts and rising costs.

Personally, I do not foresee any nuclear reactors ever being built in the country, as public opinion on its negatives will be near impossible to overcome. Equally, I do not see any need for Ireland to go nuclear. We are located in a prime location for the generation of wind, wave, tidal energy. We could yet go down the route of biofuels if it became more profitable to use our farmland for such ventures, but I believe projects PlantLab in The Netherlands are the way we are headed - whether it is used for foods or fuels remains to be seen.

The big issue surrounding most renewables is their unpredictable nature. While this is definitely true in many cases - excluding tidal - all it reveals to me is an opportunity. Interconnection with Britain/Europe and keeping existent plants on standby will ensure that demand never exceeds supply. Adoption of these renewable energies will also ensure will invest more in energy storage. While mechanical storage, pumped hydro or flywheel, remains the viable option; increased research into chemical energy storage (batteries) is an area which will continue to become more profitable as electronics become more powerful, lighter etc.

Macha · 13-08-2012 9:06am

[mod] Seanw, please stop with the references to the 'environmental left' and Greenpeace (I assume as some sort of blanket reference for all engos). It's lazy debating that ignores the different positions within these groups. And you've already been asked enough times. [mod]

Capt'n Midnight · 13-08-2012 11:23am

SeanW wrote: »

My preference would be for some sort of small nuclear system like the Toshiba 4S, likely a smorgasbord of 50MW units nationwide.

The larger a reactor is the more efficient it is. The 1GW figure is on the low side for new-build reactors.

50MW pebble bed reactors are only intended for use in remote communities where fossil fuel is unavailable.

And you have to factor in domestic and foreign terrorists.

Efficiency and economics are kinda important too.

Here is a big clue. If a type of reactor isn't in commercial use already it's either in development hell or it isn't economic.

A 50MW wind turbine is scary, but probably could be build, though I suspect that diminishing returns would apply.

Correct, but the Indians are working on some sort of Thorium breeder thing, with any luck they'll nail it.

let's hope they are luckier than Enron who owned a radioactive Indian reactor.
Let's pretend they can be luckier than the US who have been researching Thorium reactors for over 50 years. It's still going to take 20 years before multiple commercial Thorium reactors are operational

This is Ireland not Iceland. We don't really have any geothermal resources to speak of, there's a little bit underground heat in the Newcastle area of Soutwest Dublin/Eastern Kildare that I read some power company is building a plant on, but that's about it, at least within the first 4 miles underground or so. Technically and geologically, geothermal in Ireland is about as viable as a nuclear EPR on every street corner.

Newcastle is crazy, hot spot is about 20Km north of there.

Geothermal is everywhere if you drill deep enough.
It's predictable since you know the volume of rock between the wells.

Crazy is spending billions on a white elephant.

Geothermal is low tech. A billion euros would drill a lot of holes in the ground. We have lots of water. Pumps, pipes and steam turbines are standard kit. The problems are just economics.

I think geothermal in Ireland isn't viable. But it is probably more viable than nuclear, and has few if any downsides compared to nuclear.

Renewables are the way to go and onshore wind is the best option at present.

As for Tidal, we could power Ireland off the Dee, Mersey and Severn barrages etc. if England build them on their west coast. How much tidal power would we get from our west coast ?

djpbarry · 14-08-2012 7:49am

SeanW wrote: »

My preference would be for some sort of small nuclear system like the Toshiba 4S, likely a smorgasbord of 50MW units nationwide.
...
Correct, but the Indians are working on some sort of Thorium breeder thing, with any luck they'll nail it.

You see, this is why it's difficult to take your position seriously - you're pinning all your hopes on technologies that have not yet been demonstrated to be viable.

Capt'n Midnight · 14-08-2012 12:25pm

djpbarry wrote: »

You see, this is why it's difficult to take your position seriously - you're pinning all your hopes on technologies that have not yet been demonstrated to be viable.

We are talking about technologies that been in development for over 50 years. We are talking about an industry that has expended billions in research even though the fundamental physics hasn't really changed since the early 1950's

The Toshiba uses pebble bed technology, AFAIK it hasn't left the drawing board. The Germans started building their AVR reactor back in 1960.

Thorium was trialled in the 1950's.

Lots of nuclear technologies look attractive on paper. For example a mixture of sodium and potassium ( NAK ) is liquid at room temperature and has a very high boiling point , it's metal so conducts heat extremely well and IIRC it's well behaved wrt. neutrons and stuff

BUT the reality (as it is for so many other nuclear technologies) is very different http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/04/06/2011040600630.html

Another design China is pursuing is the sodium-cooled fast reactor or SFR. Many experts are concerned about this development since SFRs use liquid sodium as a coolant. The U.S., France, Russia and Japan attempted to build SFR nuclear plants but failed. The biggest drawback is that sodium is extremely flammable if it comes into contact with water or air. A fire broke out at Japan's Monju SFR shortly after it opened in 1995 and it had to be shut down for 15 years. At present, Russia is the only country to operate an SFR plant, which has suffered 14 fires since it began operations in 1980.

The scary thing about nukes is that every time you look a little deeper there is yet another story of failure. As for the fires ? well NAK kinda spontaneously bursts into flame in the presence of water , not only does the metal burn , but Hydrogen is released from the water and it builds up pressure / burns , and caustic burns take months to heal

Yet another example of a system where there are just too many points of failure, a single pipe bursts and it's a real mess.

Wind / Wave aren't quite as scary and while you can have catrostrophic failures in individual turbines it's usually localised and probably won't affect the rest of the site.

SeanW · 16-08-2012 1:29am

Cpt_Blackbeard wrote: »

Just a question for wholeheartedly pro-nuclear, anti-renewables crowd:

What do you propose we do while we are waiting for our nuclear reactors and plants to be built? The last time I saw any details (pre Fukushima) on waiting lists for the production of small 3rd generation reactors, it was lying at around the 20 year mark. That would be twenty more years where we are largely reliant on fossil fuels and their associated environmental impacts and rising costs.

I'm only "anti-renewables" if you think wind mills are the best thing since sliced bread, they're not.

By all means if there's a plan for a windfarm that won't kill a truckload of bats, destroy the quality of life for nearby residents, doesn't require a trainload of subsidies, then go for it!
I'm just skeptical of them because of the sheer volume of wind turbines that would be needed (powering 1/6th of the U.K. would mean covering an area the size of Wales with windfarms).

PlantLab ... pumped hydro

And you think I'M living in Cloud Cukoo Land!

Pumped Hydro will never be extensively used for the same reason that hydroelectricty is declining in importance - the engineering is absolutely massive! You have to have very large mountain valleys that you can flood at will and require a massive investment in concrete for dams. "Spirit of Ireland" proposed something like this, it went nowhere for the same reason that Ardnacrusha no longer supplies the bulk of Irelands electricity, like it did in the 1930s.

As for PlantLab, my understanding is that indoor grow houses are no better than farms (and usually worse) for requiring resources like fertiliser. Hint, this is not sustainable, fertiliser requires mined resources that the world will run out of in the next 50 years. When that happens, world agricultural production is going to fall off a cliff - this is why I am no longer a fan of biofuels, with the exception of the most efficient forms.

Macha wrote: »

[mod] Seanw, please stop with the references to the 'environmental left' and Greenpeace (I assume as some sort of blanket reference for all engos). It's lazy debating that ignores the different positions within these groups. And you've already been asked enough times. [mod]

On the nuclear issue, this wide variety of groups and individuals have the same stance "NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!"

But if you can find some major schismic policy difference relating to nuclear energy between any of the world's Green parties, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth etc. any of the mainstream environmentalists, please feel free to enlighten me.

djpbarry wrote: »

You see, this is why it's difficult to take your position seriously - you're pinning all your hopes on technologies that have not yet been demonstrated to be viable.

And I have difficulty taking anything environmentalists say seriously when the best of their legacy is Moneypoint (built in direct response to the Carnsore Point protests) and the madness that's going on in Germany at the present time.

If you're a mainstream environmentalist, this is your legacy, your contribution, a response to your policies.

Unless the "down with nuclear" crowd is happy to take responsibilty for the environmental consequences of Moneypoint and the other fossil fuel plants built at their behest, I will never be able to take of them seriously.

Especially when they turn around and say "Climate Change is everyone elses fault, we need massive carbon taxes, severe restrictions on the lives of the worlds people, Facebook to unfriend coal etc."

Capt'n Midnight · 16-08-2012 2:38am

SeanW wrote: »

Unless the "down with nuclear" crowd is happy to take responsibilty for the environmental consequences of Moneypoint and the other fossil fuel plants built at their behest, I will never be able to take of them seriously.

Back then it was a choice of Nuclear or Fossil fuel.

Large scale renewables just did not exist back then.
There were no interconnectors. (no to mention the IRA)
There was no government willingness to do much about climate change.

One of the reasons the ESB wanted Nuclear Power was so that ESB International could win more contracts abroad.

Remember back then NTR was given a monopoly over links between the N3 and N4 because they invested £30m in the West Link toll bridge. How much will it cost us ?? You can imagine the feeding frenzy that might have occurred had a nuclear plant been built ?

Also given the number of nuclear plants that have had to be repaired with costs per plant of hundreds of millions I can't see how it would have been anything other than a white elephant.

ESB International have moved on and are now working on international wind projects http://www.esbi.ie/our-businesses/engineering/renewables/wind-energy.asp

We are currently working on 4 projects with a combined capacity of 80MW.

Garvagh Glebe, Co. Leitrim.
Tullynahaw, Co. Roscommon
Hunter's Hill, Co. Tyrone.
Crockagarran, Co. Tyrone.

Grid connection applications with a combined capacity in excess of 2,000MW have been completed in the UK and Ireland.

In addition to ongoing projects in the Irish wind industry sector, we have provided wind farm engineering services to international clients in the UK, South Africa, Jordan, Poland and Spain.

http://www.esbi.ie/our-businesses/engineering/renewables/ESBI-renewables.asp

. With over 6,000MW of potential wave energy off the Irish Coast, ESBI is committed to playing its part in harnessing this renewable energy source.

For those of you who have been living under a rock, this means that we could possibly power ourselves entirely from wavepower alone. But academic since we'd also have wind and tide and links to the UK and biomass.

http://www.esbi.ie/our-businesses/engineering/renewables/esbi-ocean-energy.asp

Central to ESB's Strategic Framework toward 2020 is investment in renewable energy. Core objectives are halving carbon emissions within 12 years, and achieving a carbon net-zero position by 2035.

ESB also has a target of owning 150MW of generation from the emerging area of wave and tidal energy in its portfolio by 2020.

Yes Moneypoint is polluting, but it will be kept running until it can be replaced. Since it's capital costs were a fraction of a nuclear power plant there isn't the same incentive to try to get another 20-30 years out of it as there is with nuclear plants.

For Ireland the big problem is that a nuclear power plant is international incident or change in political will away from being closed down. BTW Have the French sorted out their backup generators yet ?

Mean while by not investing in nuclear we've been able to invest in renewables and interconnectors.

djpbarry · 16-08-2012 9:41am

SeanW wrote: »

Macha wrote: »

[mod] Seanw, please stop with the references to the 'environmental left' and Greenpeace (I assume as some sort of blanket reference for all engos). It's lazy debating that ignores the different positions within these groups. And you've already been asked enough times. [mod]

On the nuclear issue, this wide variety of groups and individuals have the same stance "NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!"

But if you can find some major schismic policy difference relating to nuclear energy between any of the world's Green parties, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth etc. any of the mainstream environmentalists, please feel free to enlighten me.

[mod]Banned for a week for ignoring a moderator’s instruction.

If you can't learn to have a discussion with people without labeling everyone who disagrees with you as a mainstream, lefty environmental, anti-nuke loon, then your next ban will be a permanent one.[/mod]

Franticfrank · 16-08-2012 10:27am

In a way, its important to observe the German 'non-nuclear experiment', or madness as some people call it, and see how they fare over a couple of years. According to statistics, Germany is still investing billions in wind. And we have a lot more of it. I spoke to some people involved in grid operation in Germany and they're convinced significant problems lie ahead. If they're wrong, and things go smoothly, I don't see why Ireland can't spend time developing and implementing an effective green strategy for the future.

Macha · 16-08-2012 9:19pm

Franticfrank wrote: »

In a way, its important to observe the German 'non-nuclear experiment', or madness as some people call it, and see how they fare over a couple of years. According to statistics, Germany is still investing billions in wind. And we have a lot more of it. I spoke to some people involved in grid operation in Germany and they're convinced significant problems lie ahead. If they're wrong, and things go smoothly, I don't see why Ireland can't spend time developing and implementing an effective green strategy for the future.

Do you know how much the German government has invested in nuclear over the years?

Nuclear cannot exist without state subsidies. No one even knows how much it will cost to fully decommission an npp as it's never been done before. And we're talking about a mature technology that has benefited from decades of subsides. Solar PV and wind are becoming more competitive every year as measured by lcoe.

If I were in favour of nuclear, I certainly wouldn't be complaining about state subsidies. EDF is currently asking for a strike price of €210/mwh from the UK government before they continue with Hinkley. A shockingly high figure.

Capt'n Midnight · 17-08-2012 12:18am

missed most of a Radio 4 program about coal this evening 8:30-9:00

Points made were that coal is abundant and stable and so you can easily get a fixed price contract for 20-30 years.

Clean coal (cleaner) can be done, but the costs make less uncompetitive with other fossil fuels.

Also that if coal had to pay €50/tonne for CO2 clean up then renewables would complete wipe it.

The fixed price of coal is very attractive it's something that can't be done for gas because even the vast new reserves from fracking you can't stockpile it and finite pipe capacity means it costs more in winter because of higher demand.

For Uranium 2-5 year contracts are more common. Until breeder reactor technology is commercialised, reactors are dependent on uranium. 13.5% of the worlds electricity comes from Nuclear and there are about 80 years left of known reserves. Doubling nuclear to 27% would mean 40 year reserves. This sets a limit for nuclear power because reactors have design lives around 40 years - partly because it takes so long to break even.

[edit]My Bad Generation III reactors have 60 year design lives http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5165182.stm
so unless lots more cheap uranium is found then a 33% increase in the power generated by nuclear would burn through known extractable reserves in 60 years (18% of the current electricity)
since the trend is for larger reactors this could mean that the number used worldwide would decrease.[/edit]

Renewables tend to have fixed prices too

And unlike fossil fuel technologies the cost of renewables is falling year upon year.

Solar is just ridiculous, panels are now a 1/4 the price they were four years ago.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/13/solar-prices-idUSL2E8FAD0X20120413 "It's fully possible that at some point in the year we get to the 70-cent a watt range,"

http://go.bloomberg.com/multimedia/solar-silicon-price-drop-brings-renewable-power-closer/

Solar power has reached a long-sought industry goal: silicon modules at a cost of one dollar per Watt of capacity. This chart shows the industry’s learning curve. For conventional panels, the price drops 24 percent for every doubling of total installation. For thin-film panels, made by First Solar, the cost falls 13 percent when capacity doubles.

Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s solar module price index stands at $1.03 per watt, a 45 percent price drop since March 2011,

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328505.000-indias-panel-price-crash-could-spark-solar-revolution.html

SOLAR power has always had a reputation for being expensive, but not for much longer. In India, electricity from solar is now cheaper than that from diesel generators.
...
Chase says solar power is now cheaper than diesel "anywhere as sunny as Spain". That means vast areas of Latin America, Africa and Asia could start adopting solar power.
...
Buying a solar panel is more expensive than buying a diesel generator, but according to Chase's calculations solar becomes cheaper than diesel after seven years. The panels last 25 years.

Should be an interesting few years for solar. As fuel prices rise and panels get cheaper the payback time will get shorter. There is also the possibility that the panels will have value at the end of their life for some of the expensive and rare materials used in some of them. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 'new lamps for old' drive - but only for specific panels.

"Wind and wave energies are not renewable after all"

Comments