Renewable Energy Cost Curves: 1980-2020

These cost curves strike me as fanciful -- does anyone know how closely they have hewn to reality since being created in 2002? -- but they are interesting and darn colorful:

Comments

[Dustinian:]

Need newer charts.

Apr 23 12:32 PM

[mbkelly75:]

Newer technology IS bringing the costs way down - but I would like to see an update of the chart also.

Apr 23 02:49 PM

[disdaniel:]

did you read the footnote on the charts?

It says 2002 (constant dollars) these are historical cost trends only.

For that I would assume they were fairly accurate up to 2002.

Solarbuzz.com puts current day levelized cost of PV at just under 21c/kwh. I'm not sure how that regresses to 2002 constant dollars or if that is even what you are asking.

I would say that the relative costs (i.e. between charts) seems to remain resonable.

Apr 23 03:27 PM

[Suncatcher:]

I am a "boots on the ground guy" with a small solar company since 1980. What I can tell you is that a typical solar thermal system (domestic hot water)in the early 80's installed for $3,500 to $4,500 (some marketing companies collecting premiums 10%-20% higher). Electrictity costs then were about 3 1/2- 4 1/2 cents per KWH. Current installations are about $8,000.00 and electricity rates vary based on utilities involved, taxes, and add ons but about 5.75- 7.5 cents per KWH (graduated scales are involved). Photovoltaic residential systems (PV) have come down in price in the last year (from $8 per watt to maybe $7/ watt) mainly because there is more competition and fewer customers to go around. There is also a lesser cost for commercial systems because of economy of scale. There isn't a very long history to judge PV by as it hasn't taken off until direct grid intertie came into being a few years ago. As long as the general economy is down systems will realize the benefit of deflation, but as soon as things improve the tendency to command higher prices will kick back in. Granted there will be modest innovation and more competition as time goes on but that will probably keep prices in check more so than drive them down. Many people have be heralding stunning breakthroughs ahead for the thirty years I have been doing this but there hasn't been any. All the improvements in equipment and price have been in small steps with occasional medium steps along the way. All the current hype is getting ahead of the reality. The above price comparisons ignore tax rebates and incentives because I think it is more appropriate to compare the real costs- not rebated costs. Also keep in mind that during the last thirty years many states (and from 1980- 1985 and the last few years the federal government) has been kicking in a substantial amount of the system costs- often up to 75% of the costs- and there still isn't a major shift to alternate energy. How cheap does it have to get before the majority of the public stops talking and opens their wallets? I am not complaining mind you as I have made a modest living during the last 30 years (supplemented by other forms of construction services) but I am shocked by the gap between the current discussion and the reality in the field.

Apr 23 04:12 PM

[nym:]

Fanciful are us.

Apr 24 10:24 AM

[adt:]

Thankyou for providing the chart.The relativities and trends look right. Dont know about Biomass being that high. Absolute prices dont look to unreasonable (especially wind and solar) in the context of the chart, ie. not intending deadly accuracy - rather the trend and relativity.

Apr 24 10:58 AM

[Ferdinand E...:]

I'm too smart to comment on these (so-called) cost curves.Instead I'll just advise whoever produced them to not present them at any conference where I am present, and conscious.

Apr 24 01:59 PM

[ObjectiveFu...:]

Is there anyone out there who can offer me ANY kind of power, much less wind, at $0.02/kwh? Maybe some of the bigger (and paid-off) Western hydro dams in a good rainfall year. Maybe.

You might get wind down to 2-3c if you could somehow find a wind source that delivers 80-90% capacity (i.e. blades are spinning 80-90% of the time).

And forget offshore wind -- you're either mired in NIMBYLimbo or talking $10k installed cost per kw. The ocean is the harshest operating environment on earth other than the interior of a volcano.

Apr 24 03:58 PM

[TinyTim:]

Nice charts.

In 1965, they claimed nuclear generated electricity would be to cheap to bother metering.

I'm also amused how in some circles nuclear has achieved renewable status.

Apr 24 07:30 PM

[quick:]

I don't know how up to date this site is, but the following site gives some examples of PV costs:

www.solarbuzz.com/Stat...

Apr 24 08:14 PM

[Suncatcher:]

Nuclear power certainly has its believers and you are right it was touted (not the majority) as the power source of the future and "too cheap to meter" was the dream. Which brings me to an important point: So much of what goes on around us is governed by emotion (including the markets) and nuclear power in this country is a great example. The reason nuclear power is dead in this country is because of how emotion driven that argument (I actually protested at one power plant and that convinced me how trite and foolish most of the people in these movements were) was, and remains. I think that nuclear power generation has it's place and so does the majority of the world. One thing it does have over the fossil fueled plants is the absence of a carbon footprint. The power industry is continuing to refine the generation process and they are soon going to roll out smaller safer plants to meet the need of smaller, more isolated populations. Disclosure: I own a solar company and stock in a uranium mine.


On Apr 24 07:30 PM TinyTim wrote:

> Nice charts.
>
> In 1965, they claimed nuclear generated electricity would be to cheap
> to bother metering.
>
> I'm also amused how in some circles nuclear has achieved renewable
> status.

Apr 24 10:13 PM

[Suncatcher:]

A cursory glance at that site convinced me it is pretty accurate except that the parity to conventional fuels seems to leave out that the alternate energy industry will have to be heavily subsidized for the foreseeable future to even be in the game. How do we quantify the cost when it is paid by someone other than the beneficiary?


On Apr 24 08:14 PM quick wrote:

> I don't know how up to date this site is, but the following site
> gives some examples of PV costs:
>
> www.solarbuzz.com/Stat...
>

Apr 24 10:18 PM

[Douglas Hvi...:]

One way to make a major improvement in solar is to use a PV/thermal combined system where it pays off. Search on (Solarwall AND Conserval) for one example. There are others. This boosts total efficiency to around 70% at a low increase in costs - provided there is an adequate use for the low temperature thermal heat. One example of that is a combination of domestic hot water preheat and annualized geo solar seasonal heat storage. I'm working on this for my house, doing the low skill & high labor preparation. By the time this is completed, costs on the rest should be down and availability higher.

Apr 25 06:37 AM

[disdaniel:]

@ Suncatcher: electricity "about 5.75- 7.5 cents per KWH"

Who and where is the customer that is only paying 6c-7c/kwh? I believe the average us retail price is between 9-10c/kwh (oh I'm sure someone in the Dakota's might be under 7c/kwh)

"The above price comparisons ignore tax rebates and incentives because I think it is more appropriate to compare the real costs- not rebated costs."

So fossil fuel sources that spew out CO2 (implicit subsidy which we don't account for in $ or cents) contain the real costs, but alternative sources should be compared without their subsidy?

Oh yeah that is fair!

Slightly OT

"Many people have be heralding stunning breakthroughs ahead for the thirty years I have been doing this but there hasn't been any."

I've got three different inventions (all patent pending) that will lower the cost of PV solar by as much as ~10% (each).

One is described/pictured here:
time-is-energy.blogspo...

I know lots of wild claims are made, but this example is pretty easy to verify. FWIW it works with solar thermal systems too--i.e. uses ~30% less copper per thermal watt--although I think the raw material cost of PV is a larger percent of the panel/installed cost than for thermal.

Apr 25 02:11 PM

[Suncatcher:]

The only reason I tend to use unrebated costs is because every state and utility varies greatly. As far as the hidden costs of generators using fossil fuels- you are going to get your wish on that one with "cap and trade". It will be very good for my business, not so good for a person or family already struggling to get by. Good luck on the inventions- maybe your breakthroughs will increase the installation level in the Chicago area. When I was there last year I could have burned up a tank of gas trying to spot a system.


On Apr 25 02:11 PM disdaniel wrote:

> @ Suncatcher: electricity "about 5.75- 7.5 cents per KWH"
>
> Who and where is the customer that is only paying 6c-7c/kwh? I
> believe the average us retail price is between 9-10c/kwh (oh I'm
> sure someone in the Dakota's might be under 7c/kwh)
>
> "The above price comparisons ignore tax rebates and incentives because
> I think it is more appropriate to compare the real costs- not rebated
> costs."
>
> So fossil fuel sources that spew out CO2 (implicit subsidy which
> we don't account for in $ or cents) contain the real costs, but alternative
> sources should be compared without their subsidy?
>
> Oh yeah that is fair!
>
> Slightly OT
>
> "Many people have be heralding stunning breakthroughs ahead for the
> thirty years I have been doing this but there hasn't been any."<br/>
>
> I've got three different inventions (all patent pending) that will
> lower the cost of PV solar by as much as ~10% (each).
>
> One is described/pictured here:
> time-is-energy.blogspo...
>
>
> I know lots of wild claims are made, but this example is pretty easy
> to verify. FWIW it works with solar thermal systems too--i.e. uses
> ~30% less copper per thermal watt--although I think the raw material
> cost of PV is a larger percent of the panel/installed cost than for
> thermal.

Apr 25 06:23 PM

[Buy and Hol...:]

I don't understand why people talk about the higher costs of alternative energy as if it's a surprise.

Of course it's more expensive. Early adopters always pay more.

Then when the product gets mass acceptance, the price comes down.

Remember things like a monochrome PC for $1,000? Or DVD players? Or LCD TVs? Or...well, you get the idea.

Apr 26 09:02 AM

[Kris Tuttle:]

I'm not sure I get the value in adding alternative energy systems to places that are firmly on the electrical grid unless it can be shown to be a major cost savings. This is certainly not close to being the case without subsidy payments from the government and even then I question whether individual consumers will really want to be in the energy generation business versus the utility.

Average consumers can probably get far more from improved energy management and conservation than making capital investments in energy generation technologies.

Apr 27 07:29 AM