The Cost Of Renewables Continues To Plummet
According to a new report from the Institute of New Economic Thinking at the University of Oxford, previous estimates about how quickly the price of renewables will fall have consistently underestimated reality (We think they are pointing their fingers at the International Energy Agency here.)
Here’s the first few paragraphs of the report:
“Rapidly decarbonizing the global energy system is critical for addressing climate change, but concerns about costs have been a barrier to implementation. Most energy economy models have historically underestimated deployment rates for renewable energy technologies and overestimated their costs. The problems with these models have stimulated calls for better approaches and recent reports have made progress in this direction.
“Here we take a new approach based on probabilistic cost forecasting methods that made reliable predictions when they were empirically tested on more than 50 technologies. We use these methods to estimate future energy system costs and find that, compared to continuing with a fossil fuel based system, a rapid green energy transition will likely result in overall net savings of many trillions of dollars (emphasis added) — even without accounting for climate damages or co-benefits of climate policy.
“We show that if solar photovoltaics, wind, batteries and hydrogen electrolyzers continue to follow their current exponentially increasing deployment trends for another decade, we achieve a near-net-zero emissions energy system within twenty-five years. In contrast, a slower transition (which involves deployment growth trends that are lower than current rates) is more expensive and a nuclear driven transition is far more expensive.
“If non-energy sources of carbon emissions such as agriculture are brought under control, our analysis indicates that a rapid green energy transition would likely generate considerable economic savings while also meeting the 1.5 degrees Paris Agreement target.
“Future energy system costs will be determined by a combination of technologies that produce, store and distribute energy. Their costs and deployment will change with time due to innovation, economic competition, public policy, concerns about climate change and other factors.”
“It’s not just good news for renewables. It’s good news for the planet,” co-author Matthew Ives, a senior researcher at the Oxford Martin Post-Carbon Transition Program, tells ArsTechnica. “The energy transition is also going to save us money. We should be doing it anyway.”
“Our approach is based on two key design principles: 1) include only the minimal set of variables necessary to represent most of the global energy system, and the most important cost and production dynamics, and 2) ensure all assumptions and dynamics are technically realistic and closely tied to empirical evidence. This means that we focus on energy technologies that have been in commercial use for sufficient time to develop a reliable historical record.
“We choose a level of model granularity well suited to the probabilistic forecasting methods used, i.e. one that allows accurate model calibration, and ensures overall cost reduction trends associated with cumulative production are captured for each technology. Our model design can be run on a laptop, is easy to understand and interpret, and allows us to calibrate all components against historical data so that the model is firmly empirically grounded. The historical data does not exist to do this on a more granular level.”
Omitted Technologies
“Consistent with our two design principles, we have deliberately omitted several minor energy technologies. Co-generation of heat, traditional biomass, marine energy, solar thermal energy, and geothermal energy were omitted either due to insufficient historical data or because they have not exhibited significant historical cost improvements, or both.
“Liquid biofuels were also excluded because any significant expansion would have high environmental costs. Finally, carbon capture and storage in conjunction with fossil fuels was omitted because i) it is currently a very small, low growth sector, ii) it has exhibited no promising cost improvements so far in its 50 year history, and iii) the cost of fossil fuels provides a hard lower bound on the cost of providing energy via fossil fuels with CCS. This means that within a few decades, electricity produced with CCS will likely not be competitive even if CCS is free.” (emphasis added)
Massive Storage Capacity
“Since renewables are intermittent, storage is essential. In the Fast Transition scenario we have allocated so much storage capacity using batteries and P2X fuels that the entire global energy system could be run for a month without any sun or wind. This is a sensible choice because both batteries and electrolyzers have highly favorable trends for cost and production.
“From 1995 to 2018 the production of lithium ion batteries increased at 30% per year, while costs dropped at 12% per year, giving an experience curve comparable to that of solar PV. Currently, about 60% of the cost of electrolytic hydrogen is electricity, and hydrogen is around 80% of the cost of ammonia, so these automatically take advantage of the high progress rates for solar PV and wind.”
Final Energy
“To understand these scenarios it is important to distinguish final energy — which is the energy delivered for use in sectors of the economy — from useful energy, which is the portion of final energy used to perform energy services, such as heat, light and kinetic energy.
“Fossil fuels tend to have large conversion losses in comparison to electricity, which means that significantly more final energy needs to be produced to obtain a given amount of useful energy. Switching to energy carriers with higher conversion efficiencies (e.g. moving to electric vehicles) significantly reduces final energy consumption.
“Our Fast Transition scenario assumes that eventually almost all energy services originate with electricity generated by solar PV and wind, making and burning P2X fuels or using batteries when it is impractical to use renewables directly. The Fast Transition substantially increases the role of electricity in the energy system.”
The INET report focuses mainly on the process of technological advancement, which is part of what has made renewables cheaper. Renewables have routinely performed beyond the expectations of previous papers. “They’ve been getting these forecasts wrong for quite some time,” Ives said. “You can see we’ve consistently broken through those forecasts again and again.”
Rather than a plateau on renewable energy costs, Ives said the greater likelihood is that the prices will decrease slower once things like solar and wind end up dominating the market. At that point, technological advances may very well still happen, but they might not be rolled out as frequently as they are now. “It’s the deployment that slows it down,” Ives says.
Michael Taylor, senior analyst at IRENA, agrees. He tells ArsTechnica his organization found that the cost reduction drivers — improved technology, supply chains, scalability, and manufacturing processes — for solar and wind are likely to continue at least for the next 10 to 15 years. With regard to previous forecasts, he says, “I would expect they’re overly pessimistic.”
Unforeseen issues such as the global pandemic and supply chain woes could slow the decline in the cost of renewables, as well as other barriers such as oil and gas subsidies, public opinion, permitting, and political considerations. “Just on purely economic grounds, there are increasing benefits to consumers to be had by accelerating the roll out of renewable power generation,” Taylor says. “We encourage policymakers to look very seriously at trying to remove the barriers that currently exist.”
The Takeaway
The report from the Institute of New Economic Thinking is a breath of fresh air. In particular, it explodes all the tripe being trotted out by fossil fuel companies to justify the continued use of their products. Carbon Capture? Pure baloney, a chimera they can hide behind while the continue their relentless greenwashing campaigns.
INET envisions consumers saving trillions of dollars as renewable energy takes over from thermal generation. The bottom line is we must stop burning fossil fuels as soon as possible if we want to keep the Earth habitable for humans. This report comes just in time for the COP 26 climate conference in Glasgow. In a rational world, global leaders would seize upon it as justification for moving forward aggressively with favorable renewable energy policies.
That’s unlikely. Those political leaders are beholden to fossil fuel companies, so expect a lot of rending of garments and gnashing of teeth as they try to spin their way out of the obvious. The only thing we as renewable energy advocates can hope for is that the price of renewables will get so low that anyone with the acumen of kumquat will have to recognize the truth. Ultimately, those free market imperatives reactionaries are so fond of will drive a stake through the heart of their beloved fossil fuel industry. We can’t wait!
Appreciate CleanTechnica’s originality? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Technician, or Ambassador — or a patron on Patreon.
I’m going to start this off by immediately begging you not to buy this ridiculous contraption you’ll see in the article below. You’ve been warned. Ok, now feast your eyes on this monstrosity! A $350 e-bike from Alibaba that comes with not just a suspension fork, not just full-suspension, but at least five more shocks than any bike should ever conceivably possess, seemingly randomly sprinkled around the bike’s frame.
Credit goes to my publisher, Seth, for finding this absolute gem. He and I play a little game where we send each other increasingly ridiculous Alibaba finds, trying to one-up the insanity of the other’s previous find. This one is definitely a contender.
Spotted on AliExpress’s platform, the site that makes it dangerously easy to procure the strangest (and sometimes coolest) things from the Far East, this is an e-bike that just keeps on giving.
First of all, check out the suspension. There’s a front suspension fork, which is theoretically standard. There’s also rear suspension, but instead of the single rear shock or occasional dual shocks (one on either side), the designers of this e-bike gave us quad shocks. Then, instead of leaving not-well-enough alone, they decided that a rear swingarm with quad shocks wasn’t enough, and then turned the entire rear half of the e-bike into another swingarm with two more shocks.
At this point, I’m starting to get confused. Do we call the battery sprung or unsprung weight now?
This much suspension is like trying to drink from a firehose, but we’re not even finished. Because if that wasn’t enough springiness for you, there are two more springs in the saddle, technically bringing us up to 10 springs total! A guy hit a speed bump on this e-bike last week, and some say he’s still bouncing.
While I’d like to give them the benefit of the doubt, my experience with the cheapest of Alibaba e-bikes tells me that they likely didn’t modify the spring rate of the shocks when they just kept copy/pasting them. That means the bike probably rides stiffer than if it had half the number of shocks (or it just has the proper pre-load for a 600 lb rider).
Unfortunately, the rest of the bike is rather par for the course in terms of cheap direct-from-China electric bicycles. We’ve got our “500 Watt” motor, a surprisingly large 48V 15Ah battery, folding handlebars, a cute little rear kid’s seat complete with grab bar (a nice touch, to be honest), a full twist throttle, fenders, and even a complete lighting package with turn signals.
The 66-lb (30 kg) bike isn’t very light, but each of those shocks adds to the poundage, not to mention all the other doodads we’ve got bolted on around the bike.
The bike still folds in half, which is surprising considering most of the frame is taken up by springs. At first glance, I didn’t even see the folding mechanism hiding there.
It’s a wild specimen, and the free shipping to the US makes the $350 price even more tempting. But please don’t buy something like this (that lead image is AI-generated… I didn’t buy or ride this!). There are some real concerns here. Who knows what kind of quality control or safety certification went into that battery, let alone the frame and other key components?
Let’s just enjoy this one on the screen like most of my Alibaba finds and appreciate that someone out there said, “let’s see how many cheap shocks we can fit on a bike,” and nobody stopped them.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Can an EV really help power your home when the power goes out? It’s one of the biggest FAQs people have about electric cars — but the answer can be a bit confusing. It’s either a yes, with a but – or a no, with an unless. To find out which EVs can offer vehicle-to-home (V2H) tech to keep the lights on or even lower your energy bills, keep on reading.
Modern EVs have big, efficient batteries capable of storing enough energy to power home for days. That can mean backup power during a storm or the ability to use stored energy during expensive peak hours and recharge again when kilowatts are cheap.
That’s all true – but only in theory. Because, while your EV might have a big battery, that doesn’t mean it has the special hardware and software that allow electricity to safely flow back out of the car baked in. Car companies call this vehicle-to-home (V2H) or bi-directional charging, and only a handful of models currently support it. That’s that, “yes, with a but” asterisk.
Yes, an EV can power your home, but it has to be one of these.
Ford F-150 Lightning
Ford made early headlines using its F-150 Lightning as a life-saving generator during winter ice storms and hurricanes, so it should come as no surprise that it’s included in this list. The best-selling electric truck in America can send up to 9.6 kW of power from its onboard batteries back to the house. More than enough to keep the lights on and the refrigerator running during an outage.
To make it work, you’ll need to install the Charge Station Pro (formerly called Intelligent Backup Power) home charger, the Home Integration System (HIS), which includes an inverter, a transfer switch, and a small battery to switch the system on, as well Ford’s Charge Station Pro 80A bi-directional charger (which comes free with the Extended Range F-150 Lightning, but costs about $1,300 otherwise).
All-in, you’re looking at about $5,000 in hardware, plus installation, to make it work.
Kia EV9
With up to 300 miles of range and ultra-fast charging, the seven-passenger electric SUV from Kia has been a hot seller. And back in March, the Kia EV9 unlocked yet another new feature: vehicle-to-home charging.
When paired with the Quasar 2 bidirectional charger from Wallbox (and the associated Power Recovery Unit, or PRU), a fully-charged Kia EV9 can power a standard suburban home for three days. Longer, still, if you’re keeping the energy use low. The Wallbox Quasar 2 isn’t cheap, though – pricing starts at $6,440 (again, plus installation). For that price, you the PRU plus a wall-mounted 12 kW L2 charger with 12.8 kW of with discharge power on a split-phase system.
Pretty much all the GM EVs
With the exception of the Chevy Brightdrop, GMC Hummer EV, and the hand-built, ultra-luxe Cadillac CELESTIQ, every Ultium-based GM EV can send battery power back to your home through GM Energy’s Ultium Home System – arguably the most fully integrated EV + battery backup + solar option out there outside of Tesla.
GM Energy says its new 19.2 kW Powershift Charger delivers around 6-7% more juice than a typical 11.5 kW L2 charger, delivering up to 51 miles of range per charge hour. Bi-directional charging requires the Powershift Charger to be paired up with a compatible GM EV and the GM Energy V2H Enablement Kit. The full system retails for $12,699, plus installation, and can be financed through GM Financial.
NOTE: some 2024 models might require a software update to enable V2H functionality, which can be done either at the dealer or through an OTA update.
Tesla Cybertruck
Tesla Cybertruck owners may have zero taste, but they have two options when it comes to powering their homes with their trucks. If they already have a Tesla Powerwall, they don’t need anything else. If they don’t, they’ll need to install a Universal Wall Connector charger, a Powershare Gateway, and a Tesla Backup Switch.
That second option will run about $3,500, plus installation.
That rounds off the list of vehicles that ship with V2H software baked in, so if you’re wondering whether or not your EV can be used to power your home, now you know the answer is yes, as long as it’s one of the ones listed above.
But you might remember that I answered the initial question by saying it was either a yes, with a but – or a no, with an unless. So if you want to use your car’s battery as a backup, but don’t have one of the EVs liksted above, that doesn’t mean you’re completely out of luck.
No, with an unless
As some of the earliest and most enthusiastic EV adopters, Tesla fans have also been among the loudest advocates for using the energy stored their cars’ batteries to back up their homes — or even the grid itself. Unfortunately for them, the slow-selling Cybertruck is the only Tesla vehicle that officially supports bi-directional charging. If you’re one of the many Model 3 and Y owners frustrated by those delays, there’s good news: those vehicles are now capable of V2H charging thanks to an “impressive” Powerwall competitor, Sigenergy.
The good news doesn’t stop there, however. The Sigenergy V2X also works with both the popular Kia EV6 and Electrek‘s 2024 EV of the Year, the Volvo EX30 over the DIN70121 protocol, and several VW/Audi/Porsche and Mercedes-Benz EVs over the ISO15118-2 protocol.
Our own Editor-in-Chief, Fred Lambert, recently went on a Sigenergy deep dive with Sylvain Juteau, President of Roulez Electrique, and came away deeply impressed with the system. I’ve included the video, above, and you can read more about the system itself at this link.
And, of course, I look forward to learning about any V2H models or more universal battery backup systems from you, the smartest readers in the blogosphere, in the comments.
Original content from Electrek.
If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Tesla has changed the meaning of “Full Self-Driving”, also known as “FSD”, to give up on its original promise of delivering unsupervised autonomy.
Since 2016, Tesla has claimed that all its vehicles in production would be capable of achieving unsupervised self-driving capability.
CEO Elon Musk has claimed that it would happen by the end of every year since 2018.
Tesla has even sold a software package, known as “Full Self-Driving Capability” (FSD), for up to $15,000 to customers, promising that the advanced driver-assist system would become fully autonomous through over-the-air software updates.
Almost a decade later, the promise has yet to be fulfilled, and Tesla has already confirmed that all vehicles produced between 2016 and 2023 don’t have the proper hardware to deliver unsupervised self-driving as promised.
Musk has been discussing the upgrade of the computers in these vehicles to appease owners, but there’s no concrete plan to implement it.
While there’s no doubt that Tesla has promised unsupervised self-driving capabilities to FSD buyers between 2016 and 2023, the automaker has since updated its language and now only sells “Full Self-Driving (Supervised)” to customers:
The fine print mentions that it doesn’t make the vehicle “autonomous” and doesn’t promise it as a feature.
In other words, people buying FSD today are not really buying the capability of unsupervised self-driving as prior buyers did.
Furthermore, Tesla’s board has just submitted a new, unprecedented CEO compensation package for shareholders’ approval, which could give Musk up to $1 trillion in stock options pending the achievement of certain milestones.
One of these milestones is Tesla having “10 Million Active FSD Subscriptions.”
At first glance, this would be hopeful for FSD buyers since part of Musk’s compensation would be dependent on delivering on the FSD promises.
However, Tesla has changed the definition of FSD in the compensation package with an extremely vague one”
“FSD” means an advanced driving system, regardless of the marketing name used, that is capable of performing transportation tasks that provide autonomous or similar functionality under specified driving conditions.
Tesla now considers FSD only an “advanced driving system” that should be “capable of performing transportation tasks that prove autonomous or similar functionality”.
The current version of FSD, which requires constant supervising by the driver, could easily fit that description.
Therefore, FSD now doesn’t come with the inital promise of Tesla owners being able to go to sleep in their vehicles and wake up at their destination – a promise that Musk has used to sell Tesla vehicles for years.
Electrek’s Take
The way Tesla discusses autonomy with customers and investors versus how it presents it in its court filings and legally binding documents is strikingly different.
It should be worrying to anyone with an interest in this.
With this very vague description in the new CEO compensation package, Tesla could literally lower the price of FSD and even remove base Autopilot to push customers toward FSD and give Musk hundreds of billions of dollars in shares in the process.
There’s precedent for Tesla decreasing pricing on FSD. Initially, Musk said that Tesla would gradually increase the price of the FSD package as the features improved and approached unsupervised autonomy.
That was true for a while, but then Tesla started slashing FSD prices, which are now down $7,000 from their high in 2023:
The trend is quite apparent and coincidentally began when Tesla’s sales started to decline.
FSD is now a simple ADAS system without any promise of unsupervised self-driving. This might quite honestly be one of the biggest cases of false advertising or bait-and-switch ever.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment11 months agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024