 | The Bullroarer - Wednesday 2nd July 2008 | TOD: Australia/New Zealand | Tapis Price Hits US$153 Per Barrel |  |
User login
Contact
- anz at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Archives
GAIA Host Collective
Actually the graph just shows what point solar becomes competitive with local power prices. In our case, we have good solar insolation but cheap coal fired power - these are what define our position on the graph. Carbon trading / taxes will move us further towards the leading edge of solar grid parity.
The Finnish position is about as far away from the grid parity curve as you can get - they have semi-expensive power and low solar insolation - I think you are equating high power prices with "doing spectacularly well".
In that case - I have misinterpreted the graph.
Even with your explanation I am not seeing the 'parity curve'. It would seem to me if they wanted to compare two different types of power they should have two different colour circles. Or alternatively a parity line which represents 1 and a number of others that represent fractions of parity.
It looks to me that it is purely the position of solar power with respect to $/W. ie Finland is producing very cheap power via solar. Or are we not looking at the cost of solar at all but the cost of power in general? If so why bother to have an axis based upon potential insolation?
Care to explain/interpret what I'm not seeing? Cheers.
There are two parity curves - denoted by the shading of the background - one for today (dark green) and one for 2020 (light green).
The left / vertical axis shows the cost of power in each country / region.
The bottom / horizontal axis shows the solar insolation level for each country / region.
The size of the circle for each country / region shows the size of the electricity market.
As the cost of solar drops, the area at grid parity or better grows out from the top right corner to expand down and to the left. The curve shows where the power generated by the solar panels has reached the local power cost - which is governed by the amount of sun received.
Does that make sense ?
I would also like to see the smaller wind generators included in these rebates. The combination of both is essential for me, Solar is secondary I need a small wind turbine much more.