“Europe’s under-exploited solar industry is about to experience a new dawn
By Rory Ross 7/8/15 at 1:05 PM”
Haha it then contains “China wants to double world solar energy production within two years. Hanergy, the world’s largest thin-film solar power company based in Beijing, is doing its bit by supplying IKEA, which has installed 700,000 solar panels worldwide.” ..em that’s Hanergy the virtually bankrupt corp whose shares are still suspended after 6 weeks
The only good thing about the article is David Bergeron‘s comment
Now imagea part of the subsidy for the green milk is put on real milk, so the price of real milk starts to go up. Now the green milk people say, look at the price of milk, is it going up, you better hurry and buy our green milk and save money. THIS IS SOLAR ENERGY.
The more green milk we buy the higher the price milk becomes and we are all worse off. We can all afford less milk. Our standard of living is diminished. THIS IS SOLAR ENERGY.
Now image a careful analysis of the green milk industry reveals the money spent reducing CO2 with green milk was actually a very poor investment. Green milk saves CO2 at a cost of $120/ton, but carbon credits trade in Europe for $5-$10/ton. So every dollar we spend on green milk could have produced about 10X more CO2 savings had it been spend more wisely. THIS IS SOLAR ENERGY.
LCOE of solar ~ 12 cents/kWh (DOD EIA Report), marginal operating cost of traditional plants, ~ 3 cents/kwh (Same report). (That is a proper apples to apples comparison)
Cost to mitigate CO2: solar ~ $120 to $200/ton. Carbon credits trade in the EU for $5-$10/ton.
Solar energy is a political solution, not a real solution.