Regarding wind. Its production has never been a problem. I believe it was T. Boone Pickens who pointed out connecting it to major cities was the bigger more expensive task.
Is it still that way today or has that costs also gone down?
1
@
Conservatives and their stagnant ideology have been proven wrong REPEATEDLY throughout history on just about every topic one could imagine.
Were you expecting them to be right here?
2
In an piece devoted to data-grounded truths, it's tragic, lazy, sadly ironic to speak of fracked natural gas as a greenhouse gas-reducing bridge to cleaner energy. "...[W]hen paired with regulations to limit its impact..." is precisely what has NOT happened, we do NOT have such regulations. Methane (natural gas) is such a powerful greenhouse gas that it doesn't take much leaking to offset the benefit of reduced CO2 emissions compared to coal and oil. And we're learning we have way more gas leaks than industry (and the EPA) would have us believe, throughout the production and distribution system, with ever-weakening regulations likely to ensure gas will never come close to this "clean bridge fuel" hype. See e.g. the June 2018 Science study by Alvarez et al, written up in https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/methane-leaks-offset-muc...
1
Finally - some good news.
So the biggest impact to lower electricity and energy costs is natural gas use and price.
The article is an homage to fracking
5
To fairly present info on this issue, instead of gamy graphics (grab the bouncing ball) -- the EB should simply present facts, rather than spin them.
I'm not even sure 2007 is a good year to start and why the EB picked that year -- but let;s go with that.
They then should present facts:
1) for each source of electric grid energy (coal, nat gas, oil, nuclear, geotherm, hydro, wind and solar, biomass) how much did it cost in 2007 for each to produce 1 KWH of electricity --- unsubsidized
2) How much did it cost for each in 2017 to produce one KWH.
3) What % did each each comprise of energy supply for the US grid in 2007 and in 2017.
Then we can perhaps make a judgment of what is going on why electricity costs have stayed flat.
But no. That would make it impossible for the EB to spin their partisan view.
And I would ask they produce info on what the total foot print is for each -- i.e. -- how much land does each require (e.g. how many acres of solar panels to produce 1 KWH) and the environmental impact. Then add in reliability and if one source needs back up, add in that cost.
Too often eds in the Times are filled with incomplete information, shall we say -- with some facts conveniently left out or twisted so that the political viewpoint being pushed is given its best possible advantage. But that's not the way journalism should work. Give us the facts. Then give us your opinion. But don't twist or omit or jumble facts or dazzle with graphics.
4
@NYT Editorial Board
That's all fine and good- But try telling and selling that to USA "Joe Six-Pack"
He'll respond [as always] when presented with mathematical data.. and to this day I have NO IDEA what this means..
"Figures don't lie .. but liars sure do figure.."
Every rube in America learns this right after the pledge of allegiance
1
It’s a fracking miracle!
Lower emissions (CO2, fine particulates, heavy metal, SO2, etc.), lower prices, and abundant supply.
Not surprisingly, the greatest opposition to fracking in both the U.S. and Europe is funded by the (previously) largest producer of natural gas…Russia.
Putin invested tremendous propaganda resources into stopping fracking, but fortunately failed. Now the U.S. is not only self-sufficient in natural gas, but can actually export enough liquid natural gas to Europe to create a price cap and supply alternative to Russian gas. This is one of the greatest, but least publicized strategic victories for the U.S. in the last decade.
Whoever developed the fracking and horizontal drilling techniques deserves the Nobel Prize.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-10/putin-s-other-america...
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/01/world/russian-money-suspected-behind-...
3
It is imperative, for national security reasons to do the following; promote energy conservation as a means to alleviating or reducing the growth of energy use in our nation. We must recognize that the Republican party is a collection of fossils serving fossil fuel companies and vote them out. Halt the exports of American crude oil and natural gas allowed in this Congress that was once prohibited. Our strategic natural resources must be preserved by stopping exports over time to assure a future supply for all Americans. Independent publicly financed efforts to educate the public about energy conservation and how things work is necessary. My mother actually believed the electricity just came from the wires but had no idea what provided it until I taught her.
The power grid wires that enter your home or apartment are connected long distances to very large generating plants that use massive amounts of fossil fuels, nuclear power, wind energy to turn windmills, massive water flow to power giant hydroelectric turbines that turn and create the electricity. Solar power from the sun's light on massive fields of solar voltaic panels that convert sunlight to electricity.
Once again, it is imperative to educate the public about how to conserve power and fuels.
Is It ON?.....Turn It OFF! It will be YOUR MONEY you will save as well.
2
Where is the human factor in these useful energy interactives? Though many people in the global North have adopted an ecological life style and are engaged in voluntary simplicity, how can such behavior be systemically supported and promoted?
One systemic possibility is to base the international monetary system (which by the way is an unjust, unsustainable and, therefore, unstable international system) on a carbon standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of such carbon-based international monetary system are presented in Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" and updated at www.timun.net.
An outstanding climate specialist and noted economics author declared: “The further into the global warming area we go, the more physics and politics narrows our possible paths of action. Here’s a very cogent and well-argued account of one of the remaining possibilities.” Bill McKibben, May 17, 2011
1
Well, you did not check out Electrical prices here in the most sunny US metro area - Tucson, AZ. Our KwHr charges have gone UP over 100% - doubled. in 2014 TEP parent UNS, was approved for sale by the business-only focused AZ Commerce Commission for $4.3 billion to CANADA based Fortis. For a year or two, consumers got a minor $1/month credit. Then AZ CC apporved rate increases, surcharge increases and the Tucson area Electrical consumer, held captive by an UN-REGULATED Monopoly, raised rates. Net rates were around 6 cents/KwHr. Now net rates are 12 cents/KwHr. I went on a more agressive electrical conservation effort. I reduced my net running usage by DOWN by 8%, but my TEP-Fortis bill went UP by 6% !!!
TEP/Fortis has a POOR solar program. TEP/FORTIS has NO HELP for Consumers wishing to conserve. For example, in CA, PGE, CE used to go pick up OLD refigerators for FREE, to promote consumer changes to higher effeciency Fridges. This creates free GENERATION Capacity, by reducing demand. TEP will not help consumers with local help to find "hot-spots" of the most energy consuming units in your house.
So-TEP/Fortis makes a small attempt at solar. But, household solar is LESS economical than Mega-Solar generating plants. These need localized gas-turbine touch-up generators for cloudy days,and nights.
So - botttom line. In the city with the most solar, we may have the highest rate increases in the nation over the last 10 years.
3
Oh, how I would love it the cost of the electricity I use was 17% lower than what it cost in 2007. The people who wrote this Opinion piece must be clueless about the cost of electricity in the Central Valley of California. May I suggest that you do some research and compare the cost of electricity in hot cities. Tell us what it would cost to use 2500Kwh in Fresno, compared to Las Vegas, Phoenix, St. Louis, Tampa, and points in-between. You will be astonished at how low, and how high, the cost of electricity can be.
1
My energy company has some of the highest rates in the nation, has tried solar and wind and there is no relief in sight for consumers.
Scroll through these stories.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/energy-green/sd-fi-ienova-t...
1
Air transport is the toughest nut to crack, and the richer people are, the more they want to fly around all over the planet.
4
The energy trend that matters is the energy people in broke, resource-starved nations are putting into generating a 5-9 child family. The one energy conservation program that would matter, if Liberals would wake up and get off their PC high-horses, would be cutting reproduction rates.
Instead they play the ostrich game, finding half a billion Bangladeshis a quaint idea because they can then complain they haven't enough dry land to stand on, and it's some wealthy nation's fault. A perfect world for the PC Liberal would be perfectly peaceful one in which they tell everyone exactly how to live.
In the flip side of the process Wall St, who is inurred to liberal whining on every level and probably finds them amusing, love to see all those new pairs of hands being born, each one representing a reduction in future labor costs by dilution of the work force.
Human demand drives all energy production of every type. Over population creates misery generically and in the lives of women specifically.
2
I only read through his first question (and his answer).
No, the retail price of electricity hasn't shrunk. What's happened is the bills have been split between generation and delivery charges (so called unbundling) -- while our bills have more than doubled.
And CT now requires that all suppliers must use 20% "renewables" (whatever that means) -- what do you suppose that adds to the cost for power?
2
sorry, while I generally support renewable energy, this is misleading. In Rhode Island we subsidize renewables with tax breaks that keeps the official cost down, but even with that, the first off-shore wind farm is coming in at three times the cost of conventional energy, but its role in increasing prices is masked as it bends in with the overall rates benefiting from relatively cheap natural gas. In addition, we face solar farms destroying large tracts of our remaining woodland (and all the creatures that live there) because of the subsidies offered to developers.
Feel-good alternative "clean energy" promoters try to mask the reality that there is no such thing as "clean energy," they all have impacts. The priority should be to reduce demand thru efficiency, a stronger conservation ethic, and slowing the rapid rate of population growth.
4
Population is the driving variable in the whole equation.
1
Masking reality? Anyone who's studied science knows that an action doesn't exist with out a subsequent reaction. I don't know of anyone in Renewables who's tried to "mask" anything. The only "masking" being done is conventional industry whose breath-taking contortions posing as responsible players in the planet's lifeline would be laughable if they weren't so pathetic.
We're heading for a cliff and to dismiss pragmatic solutions for the "should be" idealism of your last sentence is navigating with eyes wide shut.
2
Most comments are discussing the supply of energy & it’s various sources: wind solar oil coal etc.
What about consumption??
There’s a lot of low hanging fruit easily had via simple conservation efforts.
There are many simple things that few would notice any effect in their day to day lives — turning off of lights, the thermostat lowering just a couple degrees lower in winter/ higher in Summer are some example — there’s plenty more.
I see so much waste in these type of things and many others that a few percentage of Co2 emissions could be cut right there, no muss, no fuss.
Vermont aggressively promoted subsidies for weatherizing households. Before, the average household used 1,400 gallons of fuel oil. Weatherized houses now consume only about 50% of that earlier oil consumption rate. Economic payback — 3 to 4 years. Environmental payback — day 1.
Another effective subsidized conservation effort was for compact florescent & now LED bulbs.
At the little establishment I operate I swapped out all the halogen builds to first compact fluorescent bulbs and now years later. Even without the subsidized savings on the bulbs, my payback was 1 year — 60 halogen bulbs swapped out twice a year vs a compact florescent at normal price would yield that payback & then they lasted 5+ years. 4 years of $0 expense there. Now the LEDs are replaceming the compacts as they burn out — with an even lower purchase price & 10 year life — I’ve saved some decent money.
3
The market does indeed seem to be turning to renewables for the obvious reason that their supply is infinite...and that turns the supply and demand pricing equation on its head. But to those who would wait comfortably for the market and new technology to arrive, cavalry like, to save us from climate change; we are WAY behind in this race. We have already increased the C02 content in the atmosphere to 410 parts per million, 25% higher than at any time in the past one million years. Further, we continue to spew C02 at a rate of roughly 10 gigatons a year. A carbon tax on all fossil fuels would, like a steroid injection into a injured muscle, stimulate the free market to work its magic much faster than it otherwise can. Return all the revenues in equal shares to the citizenry and its economic impact could be virtually nil for all except the very wealthiest (whose carbon footprints are vastly greater than the average). The Citizens Climate Lobby offers a practical solution: We just need the political will to implement it.
4
Current emissions are 40 gigatons per year, one teraton every 25 years.
1
Here's my quiz: what is better for the environment- an acre of ground with just trees and grass on it; or that same acre with a solar and wind powered house? I would suspect some people would choose the second as the correct answer.
In the end, it is not the type of energy, but the total amount of population growth and relentless increase in consumption growth that will do us in. With our passion for growth, renewables are increasing, but so are fossil fuels worldwide. Under our growth paradigm, an increase in renewable energy merely allows us to consume more energy. If we don't use our coal, another country will take it to keep their economy growing.
Renewables are not a solution if our goal is to continue to pursue perpetual growth. Why are we not talking about reducing our 24/7 lifestyle, targeting zero population growth? People need to critically analyze the false hope of 'green growth'.
4
We have a long way to go to meet our demand for low-cost, renewal energy. While we can rightfully claim progress in holding down electric utility rates, increasing natural gas production and generating more energy from renewable sources, we have not made much progress in the automotive world. Ford is dropping its passenger cars models in favor of SUVs and pickups. That reflects demand for larger, less efficient personal vehicles.
On recent days I have counted the number of pickups and SUV type vehicles (including so-called crossovers) and the total number of vehicles I see on the road while I walk my dogs. I walk from one to two miles. The pickups and SUVs have accounted for about 65% of the vehicles I see. It works about the same when I count vehicles in driveways on my walk through the neighborhood. My dog walking path includes some commuting roads as well as neighborhood streets.
Bending the greenhouse gas emission curve is not on the horizon.
8
SUVs have the aerodynamics of bricks. The same power train will deliver about 20% more MPG in a sedan or station wagon than in an SUV.
6
Total CO2 emissions are still rising. It is virtually certain that the total emission of fossil CO2 since 1800 will increase by 50% over the next 25 years, and more than double by the end of this century.
2
Steve, I don’t know about the doubling of Co2 by the end of the Century.
It probably won’t be an issue because with current Co2 output, as a planet we’ll all be looking like that tiny village in Greenland with the 11 million ton iceberg moored off its shore, large chunks ready to calve and swamp the village.
We’ll essentially flood ourselves with a couple billion exiles from the soon to be submerged coastlines. Problem solved — as the output per person will have dropped dramatically.
Well, might not be a couple billion after all: we know from Human history that great upheavals mean massive numbers of people suffering and dying.
2
With a new rate hike coming in Jan 2019 and 5 rate increases since 2007 in electricity and gas for our state's biggest energy suppliers, I fear this rose colored glasses article is suffering from average-itis.
It is difficult to get people to listen to your message when you do not acknowledge the outliers and exceptions. It is good to know that some people are getting a break in energy costs just like it is good to know that violent crime is down even though the local police dept released numbers show a sizable increase.
1
Curiously, the Editorial Board failed to mention that the Texas wind power industry receives massive federal subsidies, without which wind power would be manifestly un-affordable.
And, they skipped over the fact that the entire - relative - reduction in electricity price is due to lower natural gas prices, which are now (for the time being) competitive with coal.
But they oppose fracking, which is the only technology that makes that low price possible.
There is only one energy trend at play here, and the Editorial Board is in strong opposition to its prime drive.
But they are skilled at maskirovka, so......
4
I live in the Newark area. My average daily electricity costs $1.07/kWh. Average daily gas costs $0.63/THERMS. It is down 30.2% from July 2017.
4
The contribution of wind power to Texas energy is now about 15%. The story that is less often told is that this is about as high as it should get.
The problem with wind and solar is that their output is variable and hard to predict. Therefore, if the contribution of these two sources is much higher than that, it produces instability in the power grid. Ask the state of South Australia, which has had massive blackout problems because they dove headlong into these renewable sources.
The stable renewables are hydro and nuclear. Of course, in most places you don't have access to hydro. And nuclear, as we know, seems even more objectionable to many environmental activists than is climate change (which is therefore not actually their top priority problem).
4
Oil production and consumption has increased. Look at the stats. Prices are only indicators. The US remains the largest oil producer surpassing Saudi Arabia. It is good that the price of energy derived from wind and solar energy is coming down. But the total mass consumption of oil has increased despite its apparent deceleration.
6
A positive and reassuring read on energy. One negative though is that the low cost of electricity encourages the second largest polluter, buildings to continue to design and produce energy wasteful glass boxes that throw away the heat and cooling they consume. Building design in the United States is still in the dark ages when compared with many European counterparts like Germany.
It would be well to remember when we see fashionable glass box architecture that it comes at a higher energy and pollution cost than "old fashioned" traditional building designs that use less energy, lower energy containing materials and last much longer.
8
The retail price of electricity is based entirely on the cost of natural gas. The trend off billions of dollars in renewable subsidies, however, are hidden in taxes and not reflected in the 17% drop. the decrease in CO2 emissions is, similarly, almost exclusively due to fracking, and unaffected by taxing the working class to subsidize rich people's Teslas or portfolio managers turbines.
4
Good news, but you're missing the key point.
Coal is on its way out anyway, because it's so expensive and polluting. The same people who invest in coal and oil have made huge natural gas plays. Meanwhile, we've learned that natural gas is just as bad for the climate as coal, and might even be worse. Google Howarth, Ingreffea, and the new study from the federal government. All show no GHG emission benefit by switching from coal to gas.
Please discuss this in the future, New York Times.
10
"the cost of battery storage, which will be needed to smooth out the intermittent nature of wind and sun, is falling fast"
That is only one way to smooth out the intermittent supply. Other ways include peak demand pricing, transmission of peak production, and low cost alternative electric generation such as gas turbines used for limited times. Still others store energy but not as "batteries," such as pumping water into storage, or converting electricity to other energy forms such as hydrogen or ammonia for longer term storage.
The idea that we are dependent on battery tech to do green energy is a mistake promoted by various industries, not true, but profitable for them if believed.
12
"While some environmentalists oppose hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, the practice, when paired with regulations to limit its impact on ground water and air, can be an important part of a transition to cleaner fuels."
Do we actually see such regulations made and enforced in places that do the fracking? Generally no, and the reason is the money spent by the fracking industry to corrupt our politics.
This story needs to be written, about how fracking is not being regulated, and how money is once again corrupting politics.
20
I don't own energy stocks. I'm not a part of the energy lobby. But everyone here is wrong. You are missing the big picture. We & (the world) will continue to use coal for the foreseeable future. Maybe less but still in massive amounts. It's baked into our energy grid. It can't & won't be eliminated overnight. That will take decades. Even though our governments now subsidize clean-power sources, efficient cars, buildings, etc... we continue to rip as much oil, coal & gas out of the ground as possible. And if their own green policies mean there isn't a market for these fuels at home, then no matter: they will be exported instead. The US is extracting carbon & flowing it into the global energy system faster than ever before. Note this started during the Obama administration. We're trying simultaneously to reduce demand for fossil fuels while doing everything possible to increase the supply. More efficient engines enable more people to drive more cars over greater distances, triggering more road building, more trade & indeed more big suburban houses that take more energy to heat. Here are the key questions. Can we bring ourselves to prioritize renewables over cheap fuels, power, convenient goods & services? Are we willing to vote against our own self-interests & approve higher taxes on fossil fuels? Can we muster the restraint & cooperation needed to leave assets worth trillions in the ground? Absolutely not. It's never going to happen. Get real.
15
Well, not in California, which has essentially eliminated use of coal-fired power plants.
2
Fossil fuels, as still the main sources of energy, are in a finite supply. As long as their use increases, the prices will eventually go up. Hopefully, by then the humanity will be able to rely on solar energy, more than one-hundred years since the scientific explanation by Einstein of the photoelectric effect. As to nuclear energy, I keep the fingers crossed ...
3
The price of electricity has not gone down here since 2007. We rely on hydroelectric (renewable) as our primary source as long as I have lived here (many decades) and as long as BPA can sell more of it to CA at a higher price, they do.
I have municipal power here so it's not like there are outside stockholders who want a better rate of return.
6
There is only one source of sustainable energy that works through the night and independently of mother nature in general.
And I guarantee you we will still be using it a thousand years from now - like the rest of the universe is using it and has been using it since the big bang.
4
The problem is global.
To meet future global energy demand and avoid environmental catastrophe from global warming or economic disaster from depleting finite fossil energy resources, we cannot rely solely on existing alternative energy technologies.
We need another approach.
Franklin Medalist, Dr. James Powell, co-inventor of superconducting Maglev transport technology, http://magneticglide.com/ and one of America's leading energy scientists has proposed an international project to use superconducting Maglev technology to cheaply launch a large system of solar satellites to geosynchronous orbit to beam energy to receiving fields for distribution on Earth grids to meet future global energy demand for about 2 cents per kwhr. To hear Dr. Powell discuss this system https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0-npDJlxCA
If an international effort is started to develop this source of cheap electricity, it will also be possible to use this electricity to make jet fuel from air and water and desalinate billions of gallons of freshwater for human settlements and agriculture and power cars and ferry trucks
What makes Maglev practical and very important, however, is superconductivity. Superconductors can carry very large electric currents with zero resistance losses, indefinitely, if refrigerated at low temperatures. Using superconductors, very powerful, magnets can be fabricated to levitate and propel cargo vehicles at high speeds with energy efficiency on the surface or launch tube.
2
California's power needs follow a predictable seasonal pattern: peak use in the summer is almost double the peak use in the Winter. Renewable power supply follows a predictable daily pattern: solar power is available this time of year from early morning to early afternoon, with peak output from about 11 am to 1 pm, and wind power is flakily available in the morning and early evening and often gone for most of the middle of the day. Peak demand, on the other hand, takes place between about 5 pm and 7 pm, after renewables are waning. In hot spells, power demand is still very high after renewables are no longer available at all.
Because of this mismatch between when renewables produce power and when it is needed, we can increase renewables capacity without limit and still not have any power to meet peak daily demand. Natural gas is what provides this power.
The issue I think we face is how to keep the operators of natural gas plants interested in continuing in business if they aren't used much in the winter and are only used in the summer from late afternoon through the night.
5
Can we all agree that coal is bad for the environment and should be fazed out as an energy source as soon as possible? (I assume that President Trump and the coal industry folks won't respond.)
7
The takeaway is that fracking has lowered the cost of electricity., and reduced carbon emissions. And yet there is opposition to natural gas pipelines here in the Northeast, and fracking in NY.
Go figure.
6
Some more unregulated methane emissions with your wine, JB ?
Green energy seems to make the most sense, although we'll always need some fossil fuels for certain applications.
9
The cheapening of goods is related to spending less labor relative to the total investment. In other words the increasing productivity is the main cause of cheaper products. Or in other words by the automation of industrial processes (robotización). And finally, by paying wages below their value products are also cheapened (although not always as in monopolized branches of production)
1
(Runs off to get power bill)
So, here in the Bay Area, we are now paying 37.6 cents / kWh for power between 4pm and 9 pm and 31.2 cents / kWh at other times. These are the prices for June 2018. I pretty sure that is a lot more than we paid 10 years ago.
Wind and solar are nice for the environment, but they certainly aren't cheap given the way we do things in California.
9
Not sure who your utility is, but average electric rates in California are not much above the national average, and they are not predominantly determined by the cost of solar or wind subsidies. More likely the costs are higher because hydro-electricity supplies have been limited by years of drought, and a very complex/political regulatory situation
11
TIA, I agree that the costs quoted above are way out of line with the CA averages. But I do not know where you get 6our figures from either. For consumers, the cost for kWh in CA is 25% above average, making it one of the most expensive states. NY is even worse, 50% above average. Cuomo deserves thanks for that, as he is trying to make himself look good to environmental leftists.
As for me, I am a believer in all of the above sources, except that I would like to see coal phased out for environmental reasons. Oil is practically not even used in making electricity, so that leaves gas, nuclear, and the “green” sources. Most of the US emission improvement in recent years has been due to the substitution of gas for coal, not solar and wind. And nuclear has no emissions. And there is another tool to help reduce emissions: conservation. We ought to keep pushing the envelope on that front as well.
10
Comparing electric rates with wireless services, tuition and other non-essentials is disingenuous. New England has the highest rates in the country due to a lack of pipeline infrastructure. Renewables benefit from artificially high rates set by states to encourage their development that utilities are forced to offset by cheaper fuels such as natural gas.
5
Utilities are shifting to natural gas because: 1) It is cheaper than coal. 2) It is cleaner than coal. 3) Gas turbines can be ramped up and down to meet daily demand curves rapidly, while ramping coal and nuclear takes days, resulting in lots of waste and fluctuating prices for other sources. Utilities are not "forced" to buy natural gas. And the cost of renewables and storage has plummeted (the point of this article) to the point where new capacity is cheaper than coal moving forward, so utilities will continue to invest in it as subsidies/guaranteed prices are removed by the coal-controlled congress.
14
It looks like while the EB insinuates that the use of renewable energy sources is the cause of the stability of electricity prices, it's actually the expanded use of natural gas -- and cheaper fossil fuels generally that have kept costs flat. It''s the frackenstein monster that has driven electricity costs down. There's been some increase in wind use since 2007. Not much for solar but combined they accounted for 7% of total energy --up from around 4% in 2007.
And let's not kid ourselves -- shifting more of our energy sources to power the grid from coal to wind and solar won't have much of an impact given the emerging nations desire to achieve a standard of living like the US has and they are putting in coal plants to achieve that.
I'm all for using energy sources other than fossil fuels to power the grid as that will extend the life of fossil fuels. But this type of misleading article --- trying to insinuate that the the slight uptick in use of wind and solar (from around 4% to 7% since 2007) is responsible for keeping electricity prices flat is insulting. Particularly when part of the cost of wind and solar is subsidized.
9
Moving from 4% to 7% of the electric supply in 10 years is almost doubling, not "a slight uptick". The point is that the cost of wind and solar has plummeted, and moving forward utlliities will wisely invest in these sources, not in more costly and slow to deploy coal or nuclear plants.
7
truth -- doubling from a low base. The EB fails to mention how much the cost of wind and solar have dropped -- hard to do when it is subsidized heavily. But I can tell you this:
Since 2007
1) Coal prices have remained flat
2) Natural gas has dropped by roughly 2/3's.
3) Oil prices have dropped by 50%.
The point of this article was to infer that energy prices have remained flat even though conservatives said prices would jump if we switched to renewable sources. But -- we haven't made a switch -- wind and solar now account for 3% more of the gird's power sources than they did in 2007. The real reason electricity prices have stayed flat is because the cost of fossil fuels (primarily nat gas) have declined.
13
Ralph,
True, doubling from a low base and helped by subsidies (which fossil fuels get also, in different forms), but now installed prices for solar panels and wind turbines are 60% lower than in 2010--and continuing to decline. The cost of gas (and shift in generation to gas) is certainly the main factor in lower prices today, so the Times is disingenuous with it's use of stats. Yet moving forward wind and solar are competitive with all fossil fuels, especially in developing markets where distributed generation using wind and solar alleviate much of the need for massive infrastructure investments in pipelines, high voltage transmission, etc
7
"Utilities are indeed using much less coal, but their decisions have primarily been driven by a drop in the price of natural gas, not Obama-era policies."
??? - The drop in the price of Natural gas is a direct result of Obama era policies. He championed it, opened more up in the U.S. and there is a glut of it being made closer to home. It all did amount to a "war" on coal and that is nothing but a good thing.
Thus, he also was the first President to truly begin weening us off of Foreign Energy sources (making us safer domestically and helping with conflict around the world) - what many Republican Presidents since Regan swore to do. Progressives wrong fault him for being another one in with "big oil" because he opened up some land for drilling. But there was an end game to the decision that started the ball rolling in the right direction.
7
"The drop in the price of Natural gas is a direct result of Obama era policies. He championed it, opened more up in the U.S. and there is a glut of it being made closer to home. It all did amount to a "war" on coal and that is nothing but a good thing."
Actually, Obama worked hard to stop fracking and within the Paris Accord, was trying to reduce Natural Gas usage to 71% of what it was when the Accord was signed.
All the good things, in energy cost, reduced pollution and dramatic reductions in CO2 release are because of fracking Natural Gas.
Obama wanted to stop the use of all fossil fuels and specifically included Natural Gas.
If China and India shift from Coal to LNG, purchased from the US, Russia or Mideast, we should see a massive reduction in CO2 release plus a dramatic improvement in air quality - saving not just millions, but tens of millions from early deaths.
7
Where is the evidence of Obama working hard to stop fracking? Nowhere. Regulating methane emissions and groundwater contamination from wells does not equal trying to stop it.
12
It's a large country, so overall I'm sure that your statistics are true, but individual areas may vary. Among the variables, I wonder why I see more solar installations here in New Jersey than in aggressively sunny Arizona, where they only get between 2% and 5% of their energy from solar. Gee, it couldn't be politics and preconceptions, could it....?
11
The Times occasionally loses its mind in order to maintain a narrative, and this is one of those instances. If electricity prices have declined, it has to do with only one thing: fracking. The US over the last 10 years has gone from energy basket case to superpower, with production now overtaking Saudi Arabia. This, and only this, has contributed to lower prices. Oh, and for green alarmists everywhere, our CO2 emissions have declined faster than in Europe as fracking has also collapsed the price of clean natural gas. The only political shock in this situation is not that conservatives were indeed correct about renewables and prices (look at the stratospheric price of electricity in super Green Germany, for instance) but that President Obama, who was generally in thrall to all progressive causes, was smart enough to let the market and US ingenuity do its thing when it came to fracking. Too bad he didn't do that elsewhere, but I guess we will take what we can get.
7
Texas still uses 30% coal for electricity. This should be zero. And tomorrow.
3
Worlds second largest fossil fuel producing country: Russia. Due to annexation of Crimea, the Ukrainian civil war, and (possibly) to support its own fossil fuel industry, NATO under Obama enacted stiff sanctions against Russian fossil fuels exports in response. Clinton, by all accounts, would have stiffened those sanctions even further, hoping to dry up the Putin mafia at the source of its globally-corrupting power. The result as we see: Trumps election. Don't ever let the fossil-fueled Breitbart and Fox News outlets tell you that fossil fuels come 'cheap'.
9
You mean "conservatives" like Obama, who said that, under his proposals, "electricity prices must necessarily skyrocket"?
This is dishonest in the extreme; typical eco
The price of power went down because -- as you backhandedly admit -- natural gas fracking brought huge supplies of that fuel on line.
Who has opposed fracking, pipelines, and LNG facilities, tooth and nail? Hint: got a mirror?
Solar and wind ARE expensive toys; absent massive subsidies, no one would even be thinking about them.
But on one point, you're absolutely right: there is no way to get to any of the climate goals (assuming those to be a priority) if you can't wrap your mouth around the words "nuclear" and "hydroelectric". But the ecos hate dams almost as much as they hate nukes.
Here in NJ, the ecos just forced the shutdown of a perfectly serviceable nuke because of the asserted impact on fish. (It has been operating for 50 years without noticeable deleterious effect). And they fought tooth and nail to prevent the construction of a NG pipeline to an existing coal plant, contending it would pollute ground water!!! (An utter fairy tale)
So, honesty requires that you admit: the only reason for progress is a product ecos hate extracted by the process they despise and transported in a method they revile.
The eco solution to "climate change"? Freeze in the dark.
Unsurprisingly, most Americans are willing to take their chances on a hypothetical problem 100 years out than to take that advice.
7
No question — in a choice between coal and natural gas, the latter is not only cheaper, but also better for the environment. But natural gas also comes with some problems, notably the production and release of methane, which is a far more intensive heat-trapping gas than CO2. What looked for in vain here is what has happened to solar over the same period. The only thing that the Times noted was that Texas has a lot of space that could be devoted to solar farms. And finally, when we compare energy costs among fuels, we need to factor in the cost of remediating environmental degradation, which the coal and petroleum sector is loathe to do.
7
How about the answers to a few other trends?
1. How much of the decrease in the price of electricity is due to the decrease in the cost of fossil fuels? Natural gas, in particular, was twice as expensive in 2007 as 2017.
2. How much money are taxpayers being forced to pay for wind and solar subsidies?
3. What percentage of our electricity is coming from wind and solar and how much has that changed since 2007? According to the EIA wind and solar made up 7% of US electricity production in 2017. That's up a lot from 2007 but it's still hardly enough to make of a dent on prices.
4
Read the whole article! The answers are there.
Imagine how much further along we could have been if the GOP hadn't stymied progress every step of the way.
23
D to go forward; R for reverse....over an idiotic, destructive, greedy cliff.
November 6 2018
9
In the Republican 8th district of Washington State, at least one farming couple is catching flack for installing solar panels on their farmland. This offends some who view this as unnatural clutter. What is interesting to me is that the couple support the current Republican representative who is retiring and the Republican likely to replace him. They view solar energy as just another crop and one that can keep their farm profitable. To me, a Democrat, this is surprisingly good news. I doubt that all the wind farms are run by starry-eyed liberals. They are built by people studying the economics and viewing future trends. Also, not mentioned in the article is that small self-contained nuclear reactors are finally starting to come on line--the first will be in Idaho and has contracts for the power with utilities. Sort of like a piston engine, they can string these small reactors together to produce more power. If for some reason, their was a failure, the container for the small reactors can withstand a complete meltdown of the fuel with a wide margin for error, thus, eliminating the fear of radiation contamination of the atmosphere or surrounding land. They otherwise function within the existing regulatory framework so they do not need to reinvent the wheel to get these things approved and built. Of course, cheap enough batteries might be the other way to augment wind and solar without nuclear. But chances are their will always be a use for a mix of resources.
2
This article is interesting and easy enough for a sixth grader to follow, but is the controversy about environmental dangers of fracking really so settled as the article suggests. Dismissal of environmental concerns about this methodology struck me as a bit slick.
Of course, it has been great for the overall economy of the U.S. and a lot of the problems were brought about by leakage allowed by smaller, fly by night companies, but huge environmental changes often have long term consequences, probably even when they occur a long ways underground.
4
Fracking may or may not be an overall net-gain for the environment as a whole. It requires huge quantities of fresh water, for one thing, which is a resource of increasing importance as aquifers shrink in drier regions. There is also the danger of polluting these aquifers.
https://strata.org/pdf/2018/groundwater-regulations.pdf
9
About 25%of the manmade global warming we're experiencing today is caused by methane emissions.
The largest source of industrial emissions is the oil and gas industry, which the Trump Administration treats like a lover.
https://www.edf.org/methane-other-important-greenhouse-gas
http://fortune.com/2017/07/04/pruitt-epa-court-methane-emissions/
A federal appeals court in Washington one year ago that the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency - the diabolical Scott Pruitt - overstepped his authority in trying to delay implementation of an Obama administration rule requiring oil and gas companies to monitor and reduce methane leaks.
Gas Oil Pollution 2018
Nice GOPeople.
25
This reminds me of the frustration I felt during the worst part of the recession when it was already clear that out here in the sunny southwestern U.S. decentralized (end user location) solar could take over the bulk of our daytime electrical needs and the transition including the updating of the grid would create a LOT of jobs, but there were all the usual suspects pooh-poohing it and doing their damnedest to inhibit the domestic development of the requisite new hardware industries. Where did they develop instead? China of course.
I also remember what an eye-opener it was to watch Germany's progress with solar. If a country in that high a latitude can produce a useful fraction of its needed energy from the sun obvious we down in our lower latitude have no excuse whatsoever.
70
Wind and solar are monstrously subsidized by the federal government and state governments, especially in California, so who knows what the real costs are for building, maintaining, and watts/dollar. But we do know that natural gas has transformed the utility industry and destroyed nuclear at the same time.
Not to get too far into the weeds, but imagine the cost of the power-grid build-out required to charge fifty percent of the autos in America every night, not to mention the auto stops along the way and the multitude of homes and apartment buildings that would have to be brought up to code. It would take a solar farm the size of Montana just to run L.A. and all the wind farms in America might light the Chicago metro area for an afternoon.
More "collectivist" fantasy from the Editorial Board.
5
That's a timid response considering the magnitude of the challenge we are facing.
I put solar panels on my house 7 years ago and I will need another 7 years of them to amortize. But I am actually producing more energy than I consume. And that is in the middle of a major city.
It can be done, at a cost of less than 10% the cost of the house.
As for the wind farms: There were days when the wind produced in Texas exceeded the electricity demand of the entire state. Not sure where your numbers are coming from.
35
Sure, Alice. Get into the weeds and ask yourself about federal subsidies and tax preferences for fossil fuels. Imagine the cost of the buildout going on today to create massive fracking infrastructure all over the various shale and tight rock plays.
Then ask yourself which lease will provide the average farmer or rancher revenue for more years - a lease on fracking wells (which peter out) or a lease on wind turbines or solar panels (wind and sunlight are in good supply)
Charging cars overnight is a great way to incorporate more and more renewables into the grid - wind blows at night, you know, and distributing that power to cars while other energy demand is lower is a great way for utilities to extend the active use of existing transmission and distribution infrastructure.
By the way, having a great big thermal power plant (coal, gas or nuclear) providing power means that you have to have 100% capacity equal to that plant available every moment - because power plants shut down from time to time.
The economics are improving every year for renewables, and as for grid buildout - renewables and batteries fit very well with the grid enhancements utilities have been rolling out for a couple of decades. I just got a couple dollars off of my electric bill because I responded to an alert to reduce use during a peak demand period yesterday - that wasn't possible before grid enhancements.
Your arguments don't work. By the way, what isn't "collectivist" about the existing grid?
46
Actually, it would take 0.1% of New Mexico to provide enough PV Solar power to run the whole country. A solar farm the size of Montana could run the whole western hemisphere with power to spare.
40
A cleverly crafted article to make a point?
The shale revolution and the widespread use of horizontal drilling are the reason for the drop in other fossil fuel use ... we also allow the exportation of fuels that we at one time did not. China can now get liquid fuels vs purchase coal from us.
We at one time shipped massive amounts of coal to China -- by train and boat.
Industry will always use NG if available and the same price as other fuels -- it's cheaper .. so, its a no brainer.
And, the renewable wind and solar were always going to grow as they got cheaper -- it was the huge subsidies that many thought silly .. especially since they went to firms in China.
Using percentage increases is misleading -- having one and increasing 1000 percent gets 10 ....
Electric use is lower today vs 10 years ago even with more people -- we are more energy efficient and we have less heavy industry using electricity. Metro areas have been able to flatten out the grid and use less very expensive peak energy,
It's many areas of the heartland that are paying more.
2
The article rightly points out that energy markets vary from state to state. I'm not an energy expert so I don't know the details, but our local utility invested heavily in comparatively expensive wind, renewable energy sources and natural gas in anticipation of future higher energy costs. However, most of our energy is based on hydroelectric power which stayed comparatively cheap as did natural gas. Currently we are paying higher prices for the wind and renewable power compared to hydro and gas. This situation is expected to continue for a long time. (Now, if we could only figure out how to store the electricity from water flowing through the turbines at the dams at night we could have even lower costs.)
2
Fascinating. This is a story that has gotten lost amid this administration's scandals, corruption, and Twitter melodrama, but it's precisely this kind of "unsexy" truth that the public needs to know--and has a right to. More like this, please.
62
Will the administration's tariffs raise the price of solar panels manufactured mainly in China?
2
Look at Germany - to use a trump term "Huge" increase in wind power. That is why trump's comments about Russian pipeline is just plain wrong. It is just a short term bridge for the Germans. If the Russians would cut them off Germany would just use LNG to finish the bridge to new energy.
21
Despite that, energy prices, particularly electric, are more than twice as expensive as in the US. I do not claim to understand the reason, but one of the reasons gasoline is so much more expensive than in the US is the huge tax imposed by the governments in Europe. Thus, taxation may play a role.
6
I agree completely with you about the price of fuel and taxes in Europe and it likely supports a high price for electrical and a quicker payback on the investment. Europe pays much of it tax in VAT and sales taxes. We don't have to go to Europe to see this - just go north of the border into Canada and you find high gas prices (via taxes again) but at least in some parts lower electrical cost because of hydro. In fact in Ontario they call their electrical utility - Hydro.
3
Meanwhile, in the Port of Corpus Christi, Texas, there's a big project underway to enable shale gas to be exported in LNG tankers. China's already contracted to take much of the early output, but it's certainly possible that American gas might end up in Germany.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cheniere-energy-lng/cheniere-moves-ah...
That's funny. My energy bills are up 40% the last 8 years since renewable mandates were put into law.
So trend..trend...trend away your petty little worries about the world ending in 10 years....someone has to pay for it.
My solution? I don't tip the baristas...figuring 99% of them are greenies and likely appreciate my giving their tip money to the energy company in support of their renewable energy initiatives....forced on them by the state.
5
My cable bills have gone up over 100% in the last ten years so I don't tip the pizza delivery guy because I just know he goes home after work and watches TV.
now there's creative rationalization to be miserly and not tip.
I am in total awe about the New York Times' ability to show complex data and information in a totally understandable, clear way. Totally in awe.
21
As long as you don’t care about the bias in the way they analyze and present data.
5
If I were a fellow at a fossil fuel lobbyist, I'd blame renewables government grants and tax incentives on the ever rising price of college tuition. All the largess could be keeping tuition down.
Of course, the shale revolution in Pennsylvania has helped New York City out greatly with cheap gas for heating and electricity on the one hand. On the other, Pennsylvania doesn't take any severance on natural gas production form all those thousands of fracked horizontal well. Severance taxes that could be used to help out public education from K through graduate school in PA.
In summary, this wonderful editorial piece was prepared and put on the internet via cheap electricity - all on the backs of the people of Pennsylvania who are forced to pay usery tuition to better their children's lot in life. Of course it was the effete chattering class Manhattanites who blocked high volume fracking under the surface of the southern tier of New York State.
1
It takes some sort of mental gymnastics to blame New York for the actions of the Pennsylvania government.
It's like Trump's blaming of Obama for Trump's attacks on Obama's citizenship.
25
Isn't Trump from New York and doesn't he embody everything that is New York City and the tri state area? Cheap gas from Pennsylvania and cheap garbage disposal to Pennsylvania. There's a gifted high school kid in Intercource, PA who can't afford college because of New Yorkers living large Trump style.
The price I pay for electricity supplied by Duke Energy in Indiana increased in some months more than 3-fold between 2015 and 2018, without the same increase in usage. I see Duke's shareholders profiting and not us customers.
10
This is us--shareholders profiting at the expense of consumers' rising costs for commodities we believe in this country are necessary for basic life.
3
AR~Isn't there a federal law or state law regarding profit levels for must-have utilities so they are available to all citizens? As a former Illinoisan, I know CUB (Citizens Utility Board) prevented the increases you are suffering. What is the state of Indiana doing about this price gouging?
6