2014 was hotter than 1998. 2015 data in yet?

How it takes less than 10 years for a solar panel to pay for itself?How Colombia, Maryland (100,000 people over 32 square miles) gets 100% of it's energy from renewables (including 25% from solar) and has an unemployment rate under 4%? (btw Maryland has about 6 million people in around 10,000 square miles)

quote:

---

Columbia, Md. Now 100 Percent Renewable with Latest Solar Farm from SunEdison
- SunEdison and BITHENERGY Partner to Build 2 Megawatt Solar Farm for the Community
BELMONT, Calif., Sept. 11, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- SunEdison, Inc. (SUNE), the largest global renewable energy development company, in partnership with BITHENERGY, a leading solar developer, today announced that Columbia, Md. is now offsetting 100 percent of its energy use from renewable sources. Columbia now sources 75 percent of its energy from wind renewable energy credits, and 25 percent from a newly completed two megawatt (MW) DC solar farm in SunEdison and BITHENERGY's Nixon Farm solar project in West Friendship, Md.

​

The 2 MW solar farm is expected to generate enough energy to power more than 250 homes and avoid the emission of more than two million pounds of carbon dioxide, equivalent to taking 220 cars off the road.

​

Columbia, Md. is home to approximately 100,000 people, and is managed by the non-profit service corporation Columbia Association. The non-profit is purchasing the solar power for the community through a 20 year power purchase agreement with SunEdison. The solar farm is located outside of Columbia, and via virtual net metering credits the community can enjoy the benefits of solar without the need to locate the solar farm on-site.

​

"With the completion of the Nixon Farm solar power plant, the people of Columbia now enjoy the environmental and cost benefits of getting 100 percent of their electricity from renewable sources," said Steve Raeder, SunEdison's general manager of Eastern U.S. commercial and industrial solar. "Solar energy is a clean, reliable source of energy that makes great financial sense for communities across the U.S."
Columbia, Md. Now 100 Percent Renewable with Latest Solar Farm from SunEdison

---

quote:

---

2015 Columbia, MD Unemployment Rate

​

Month/Year Columbia, MD% Maryland% National %
1 / 2015 4.3% 5.9% 5.7%
2 / 2015 4.0% 5.6% 5.5%
3 / 2015 4.0% 5.4% 5.5%
4 / 2015 3.7% 4.9% 5.4%
5 / 2015 4.2% 5.3% 5.5%
6 / 2015 4.5% 5.6% 5.3%
7 / 2015 4.3% 5.4% 5.3%
8 / 2015 4.0% 5.1% 5.1%
9 / 2015 4.0% 5.0% 5.1%
10 / 2015 4.1% 5.2% 5.0%
11 / 2015 3.8% 5.1% 5.0%

---

Colombia is about 5 times denser than the rest of Maryland (and a bit to the north of central MD fyi).

"The whole thing is an accounting trick"

Go.

Germany made a ton of purchases when the price for solar was super-duper expensive. I'll post an example of just how much cheaper solar has gotten. So people can see how much more solar one can get for the same amount of money Germany has spent.And Germany gets literally 500% more solar power on a clear day (though they are rare)than the average day.When looking at the United States, compared to what Germany has gotten, the average dollar spent in 2016 on solar will easily get 10 times the amount of electricity on average.

quote:

---

July 30, 2015, 5:43 PM
Orlando's electricity provider struck a deal this week for solar energy that will cost less than energy from the utility's coal and natural-gas plants.

​

"We really are at a tipping point where solar is the least-cost option," said Tom Hunton, president and CEO of American Capital Energy, which will build, own and manage the plant for Orlando Utilities Commission.
....
The new plant will rise from a pair of treeless tracts covering 31 acres in east Orange County at Curtis Stanton Energy Center.
....
In all, nearly 42,000 solar panels will be erected and by early next year will pump up to 13 megawatts, or enough electricity into OUC's grid to power about 1,500 homes.
....
The plant's large size will result in a lower cost per panel than what a homeowner might be able to purchase for a rooftop system.

​

The reduced-cost predicted milestone for solar power, occurring unevenly across the nation because of varying electricity rates, reflects tumbling prices for solar panels and related hardware.

​

A standard panel puts out 310 watts today compared with 265 watts about five years ago. Also part of the equation, panels cost less than 80 cents per watt today and about $2 per watt five years ago. The industry expects continued declines in cost.

​

The resulting numbers are telling: OUC will pay 7 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity from the new solar plant, which is a steep drop from the 19 cents per kilowatt-hour from a solar plant built for OUC less than four years ago.

​

It costs OUC 8 cents per kilowatt-hour to generate electricity by burning coal and natural gas. In turn, the utility charges its more than 200,000 residential customers at least 10 cents per kilowatt-hour.

​

A kilowatt-hour is enough power to turn on 10, 100-watt bulbs for an hour.

​

"Alternative energy is always alternative energy until it's cheaper than the cheapest energy," said Jim Fenton, Florida Solar Energy Center director. "Now solar is cheaper than coal."

​

Mark 9 KJV - And he said unto them, Verily I say - Bible Gateway

---

19 cents per kilowatt hour LESS THAN FOUR YEARS AGO.7 cents per kilowatt hour in 2015.Cheaper than coal and gas today, over twice as expensive back in early 2012.Texas is 9% of the U.S. population, Florida is about 7%. That's at least 1 in 6 people who live in states where coal and gas seem to be the same utility-scale price as solar. (and it understates the long-term value, decades later, as solar will be producing energy past the time measures/financing contracts used for calculating the initial utility-rate prices)

We have listened to the deniers.They kept telling us (well all sorts of diverse things, but some of what they said was) "the earth isn't warming" then Mueller (once a skeptic) did a big Koch-funded study and found out that the temperatures really were increasing (not due to urban heat islands and flawed measurements).Then they said "warming stopped in the latter half of the 1990s".We have seen that isn't the case. (re the evidence this week -2015 data - and the evidence almost a year ago today which showed final refined 2014 numbers)These tend to be the same people that tell us that Solar is unreliable while petroleum is a reliable, stable source of energy.(Actually home energy prices won't much drop - despite oil falling from $145 per-barrel a year ago to $27 today - BECAUSE our plants don't use middle eastern oil DUE TO UNRELIABLE PRICING!)

quote:

---

The is 216 feet of ocean raise locked up in ice that will melt.

---

Only about 9 inches has melted in the last 100+ years.People just aren't impressed with that argument.The melting hasn't really begun to happen.All people remember is the Al Gore movie and its exaggerated predictions.Al Gore responded by pointing out that the waters of the Atlantic were 9 degrees hotter during the October 2012 hurricane and that - temporarily at least - Ground Zero, Manhattan was indeed under water, only much sooner.It is a fact is that man-made global warming is very costly, from an economic perspective.The (permanent)ocean life deaths(due to acidification)seem to be the urgent concern, from the environmental perspective.

It is something like 3-5 times the overall increase in land temperature.It truly does make hurricanes more powerful.And it turns (what would be)tropical storms into hurricanes.Both carbon and methane heat the oceans.But the issue of acidity & extinct ocean life comes about from carbon alone, I think.

quote:

---

But the real problem with solar power is that it simply doesn't power anything. It just can't give us the power our societies need.

---

Actually, for new generating capacity, it is a cost-competitive option in about a third of places people live in the USA.Look at the total power-plant production and Solar is like 1%.But the number is like 20 times that for new power-plants being built.Solar and wind are the majority of new generation capacity I think.It is really expensive to dear down existing coal facilities (with lots of life left in them before the normal age of retirement) and to replace with solar. But that is a different issue.

GoogleYou can see by the news lines that they were 61% of new-generating capacity in 2015.Wind was 47% and I think solar was 14% (I'm in a hurry and don't have time right now so go into it).Google news link.Keep checking the link.Will update with tons of new news items every time you click.

quote:

---

Do you know how many serious replies I got? How many attempts to present the math? How many folks stepped up to demonstrate the real-world feasibility of renewables to replace fossil fuels?

​

Exactly zero.

---

I linked to a Stanford study of just such a plan offered in New York. (it didn't require automobiles to be electric though)The technology is there.Common sense suggests that solar can be scaled above what is the present deployment.This is an easy quantification and it isn't "quantum physics" lol.

Solar and wind are already about 5% of total energy on the grid. (and about 50% of new additions)That is despite the pathetic level of funding for renewables and the massive head start coal, oil, and gas have had.Anybody who thinks that solar and wind can't be 100% is delusional.And both are getting cheaper, much cheaper in the case of solar.If petroleum is so great then why are electric cars cheaper to fuel? Tesla just released an electric car for $80,000 but there is a $9,000 savings in average energy costs over 5 years (and $18,000 over 10 years I suppose).btw, Jon.Have you gotten back from your car yet? You said wind and solar were less than 50% of new generation capacity added in 2015.I want to see your numbers backing up your claim.

Have you felt the brutal winds off the ocean in Manhattan?In winter time, they are painful.Solar power plants do take up 10 times the space as coal-fired power plants (though the mining of coal and the space that takes more than matches the size of solar plants), so one can argue that places with limited land might be an issue.I need to find numbers for what the percentage totals coal, gas, and oil are used as part of the grid. I want to see what fraction they are.I'll start with the national numbers.I'll be back.EDIT

quote:

---

In 2014, the United States generated about 4,093 billion kilowatthours of electricity.1 About 67% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and petroleum).

​

Major energy sources and percent share of total U.S. electricity generation in 2014:
Coal = 39%
Natural gas = 27%
Nuclear = 19%
Hydropower = 6%
Other renewables = 7% Biomass = 1.7%
Geothermal = 0.4%
Solar = 0.4%
Wind = 4.4%

​

Petroleum = 1%
Other gases < 1%

​

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

---

In 2014, it was 67% (fossil fuels and coal) to 5% (wind solar), but I imagine it is more like 66% to 6% today. Taking just these 2 (fossil fuels/coal verses wind/solar) wind/solar is about 10% of the 2016 total it would seem.Very large wind turbines off the shore are cost competitive and don't take up space on land.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

They reduce demand.Makes the supply of fossil fuels much cheaper and more accessible.Fossil fuels fall in price when the supply rises relative to the demand.Or the demand falls relative to the supply.Solar & wind makes fossil fuels more fluent of an asset to society. Before the artificial tightening by the (big oil) manipulators.EDIT fossil fuels aren't a reliable source of energy. That's why our (now in the past) newer power plants had to stop using oil. Natural gas plants will prove to be just as unreliable with viscious price swings UP UP UP as we build more and more plants.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I was moreso talking about a world without energy. And right now a world without fossil fuels is a world without energy.

---

Electrical cars are cheaper to "fuel up" than gas guzzlers.Electricity isn't sourced from oil. Oil is (on average) too expensive so the electrical power plants aren't oil-fired.Solar is competitive with coal and natural gas in many places (where about 1/3rd of Americans live).Electrical cars can be powered by solar in places where 1/3rd of Americans live.Coal, natural gas, oil, etc. fired plants only supply about 65% of the electricity on our grid. For every 10 watts of coal/gas/oil produced, there is 1 produced from wind and solar.Why not simply produce 10 times more solar and wind than we do presently? And then discontinue (or decommission) the coal, natural gas, and oil plants?It isn't exactly a "mission to the moon" to up the current wind turbine and solar panel quantity by a factor of 10.