The findings presented here show quite clearly that states with high volumes of wind and solar PV have seen well below average cost increases. When this fact is considered in conjunction with the various health, environmental, energy security, and job creation benefits of renewable forms of generation, it helps to form a compelling argument in their favor. The next time someone tells you that they would support renewable energy if the costs weren’t so high, share these findings with them and see if their perspective changes.

The top five states were chosen because they accounted for over 50% of installed wind and solar PV volume by the end of 2010. On average, rates in these states increased by 1.35¢/kWh over five years (or 3.2% annually).  The bottom five states were the only states to have each installed less than 1 MW of cumulative solar PV and wind capacity through 2010.  On average, rates in these states increased by 1.39¢/kWh over five years (or 4.0% annually).  On average across the U.S., by comparison, electricity prices increased by 1.8¢/kWh over five years (or 4.1% annually).

Brennan Lou, in a RenewableEnergyWorld.Com re-post

The health, environmental, and direct job creation benefits of renewable energy vs. traditional forms of power generation are widely accepted. All other things being equal, it would be a foregone conclusion that renewable energy should be chosen over other types of generation. Of course, all other things are not equal. To understand the total impact of integrating renewables into an electricity supply mix, the value of any benefits must be carefully weighed against the costs that may arise from choosing renewables.

Read more

Chart from Emanuel Sachs of MIT with data that is already two years old.  Recent discoveries hold the promise of keeping the cost reductions going past 2020.

New research on solar energy conversion finds, “the efficiency of conventional solar cells could be significantly increased.”  The research was led by chemist Xiaoyang Zhu at The University of Texas at Austin.  Their news release explains:

… it’s possible to double the number of electrons harvested from one photon of sunlight using an organic plastic semiconductor material.

“Plastic semiconductor solar cell production has great advantages, one of which is low cost,” said Zhu, a professor of chemistry. “Combined with the vast capabilities for molecular design and synthesis, our discovery opens the door to an exciting new approach for solar energy conversion, leading to much higher efficiencies.”

The research holds the possibility of increasing the efficiency of solar cells by 50% to 100%.

A recent study found that “Solar Power Is Much Cheaper to Produce Than Most Analysts Realize.”  And Climate Progress has laid out a path for further reductions (see Anatomy of a Solar PV System: How to Continue “Ferocious Cost Reductions” for Solar Electricity).

Advances like this one hold the promise of even further reductions post-2020.  The study itself in Science, “Observing the Multiexciton State in Singlet Fission and Ensuing Ultrafast Multielectron Transfer” (subs. req’d) is pretty technical stuff.

Here’s a more digestible version of the finding from the news release:

Read more

I will be on vacation Christmas to New Year’s, as will Stephen Lacey.  And for me this is a real vacation,  in that I probably won’t spend even 2 hours a day blogging!

Climate Progress will still go on.  So if there is a major breaking story, we will cover it.  But mostly we will be rerunning the best climate and energy blog posts of 2011 from around the web.

So we’d love your suggestions for what those are — including any from CP you think worth reposting.

IF you are suggesting something from your own blog, then please keep that to just your single best post.

Note: Try to find stuff off the beaten e-path.  For instance, we know and love Skeptical Science, and we will definitely be running some of their stuff over the break.

by Andrew Light

I’m going to assume that anyone reading this post is driven as I am everyday by alarm at the growing climate crisis and the apparent lack of progress in responding to it.  We all articulate this existential worry in various ways, but I feel that at bottom our alarm is commonly driven by a deep moral concern about what is and is not being done with respect to the welfare of current and future generations and the planet we inhabit, along with moral outrage at the roadblocks that are intentionally thrown up against our efforts.

In this world of deep and abiding moral concern reports of yet another empty pledge, or failed promise for action, or lost vote in a deliberative body may as well be the latest nonsense from the climate denial crowd.  In many ways though its worse.  We don’t expect those folks to listen to what the latest credible science says, marry that to a thorough assessment of our values, and then set priorities for action.  We expect those folks to stand in the way and that’s what they do.

So when a big global event comes together, like the annual meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which ended last Sunday in Duban, South Africa, without easily discernable progress if not game-changing solutions, the climate community’s dismay turns to the same sort of incredulity and frustration with which we greet the climate skeptics.

That’s the view of Mark Hertsgaard over at The Nation about the Durban outcome.  Hertsgaard calls out climate negotiators who settled the Durban deal with a special focus on the U.S. and Chinese climate envoys.  In Hertsgaard’s analysis, the likes of Todd Stern and Jonathan Pershing over at the State Department, are a new breed of climate deniers responsible for the “disaster in Durban.”

This would be a bold take down of the Durban outcome if there was any hint of accuracy in it.  Instead, for anyone who closely follows the climate negotiations, this piece comes across as at best biased by a blind spot about the full package that moved forward at Durban, and at worst remarkably uniformed.

Read more