Here’s Why Solar Energy May Beat Out Coal in a Decade

Here's Why Solar Energy May Beat Out Coal in a Decade

Jan.04 — Bloomberg’s Chris Martin reports on the declining cost in producing solar energy and his outlook for the coal industry. He speaks on “Bloomberg Technology.”

20 Responses to Here’s Why Solar Energy May Beat Out Coal in a Decade

  1. carls apartments says:

    So to sum things up then… uh um well um we uh well um uh it's um uh well um….

  2. Damian Reloaded says:

    Solar hires almost twice as many people than oil, gas and coal combined . So I'd say it has already beaten fossil fuels on the *jobs* front.

  3. Jane Smith says:

    Even a third grade student knew this >>> that solar beats coal?

    The rich has a lot of their stocks on mining and coal. The day they sell all their stocks to uninformed buyers, is the day they will promote and invest in solar and green energy.

  4. Kenz300 x says:

    Invest in the future like wind and solar.
    Coal is the past. Look how fast people lost money when coal companies went bankrupt.

  5. Archer V. says:

    WTF!!! elonk musk was right!! Baster!

  6. svenm Sandity says:

    bitcoin solar farm owners and wind farm owners and a more diverse power grid

  7. Dolores Henry says:

    I have a Degree in Renewable Energy and this book [link here >>> ] was required for the Solar Energy class. It is easy to read with good explanations. I would recommend to anyone.

  8. Yoni Binstock says:

    If you're interested in the future economy and solar jobs, check out the Udemy course "How to Get a Job in the Solar Field"

  9. GEORGELET4 says:

    Bill Gates admitting that wind and solar are not working:
    BILL GATES : Renewables is NOT A VIABLE solution for CLIMATE CHANGE

  10. Mr Clarkson says:

    Natural Gas is King ,in the Age of American Shale Energy….When it comes to power generation!

  11. Brian Linderman says:

    Ok so it's gonna be cheaper than coal, but what about natural gas? After all it's natural gas that is out competing coal and is the #1 source of energy for electricity in the USA.

  12. seaplaneguy says:

    Developming new engine technology that can run on solar thermal as well as NG, Diesel, Ethanol and other liquid fuel and is 24/7. Can run airplane as well as power house.

    What this report fails to tell is fuels can be on demand and the fuel IS the battery. These "renewable" technologies should only get 1-2 cent/kw-hr as that is the value of such power. They all need either batteries or back up generators that just sit there waiting to save the solar power from grid collapse. This all costs money. My engine can do BOTH with one capital outlay that is par or less. 24/7 without all the hassle. BTW, my cost for solar would be 2.6 cent/kw-hr with this solar engine and solar thermal panels (glass and copper pipes…simple). Frequency and voltage maintenance 24/7, not only when the sun shines. Most loads are thermal, not electrical. This solution is much faster to low carbon than PV panels.

  13. Jeremy Weintraub says:

    This guy is avoiding the fact that solar panels still capture energy even on days when there is no sun, although with sun, the panels are more effecient

  14. Mr Clarkson says:

    Solar is intermittent,it does not work,coal works 24/7/365….
    The sun does not always shine!!! 🙂
    Gas will be King!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  15. Fick Dich says:

    Solar actually paid itself back right after a nuclear plant would be finished… how the fuck can you still build nuclear plants? thats so fucking stupid. Just combine it with batteries and there you go.

  16. Siri Erieott says:

    Stupid bitch… Really? – Solar in the UK is cost effective with payback times of only 5-7 years, even in our 50% cloudy skies.

  17. zezizarjaars says:

    Solar is in fact already cheaper, but the governments simply put a massive tax on them because the "competition" is unfair between Europe and China. China supported the solar panel groups massively by asking very low rents and things like that because China realised they had the most polluting environment in the entire world at the time.

  18. dlwatib says:

    Depending on locality, coal is already too expensive. No one analysis can answer what the cheapest form of power is. Particularly in the case of coal, transportation costs play a big part in the equation. Air pollution mitigation costs are also variable by region. Coal advocates also usually cheat and compare the cost of burning coal in an existing plant to the cost of building a new solar or wind installation. Solar and wind power is free once the harvesting equipment has been installed. Coal costs money to buy fuel even after the plant has been built. In truth there is no comparison. Free renewables always beat a new coal-fired plant built from scratch.

    I suppose what this guy really means by saying "solar may beat coal in a decade" is that the cost of a new solar installation will become so cheap in 10 years time that it won't be cost effective to keep even existing fully amortized coal-fired power plants open. The yearly amortization cost of a new solar installation will be less than the yearly cost of coal fuel.

  19. Tulio Cano says:

    Why Trump does't understand this?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *