Clean Power

Published on April 13th, 2015 | by Zachary Shahan


Solar & Wind Power Prices Often Lower Than Fossil Fuel Power Prices

April 13th, 2015 by  

By Bob Wallace & Zachary Shahan

Wind and solar electricity have become some of our least expensive ways to generate electricity in several markets around the world.

Wind is now the cheapest way to bring new electricity generation to the grid in the US as well as many other countries. Solar PV costs are rapidly dropping and solar is expected to join wind over the next few years. Furthermore, low-cost utility-scale solar is already beating out all other sources of electricity in some bidding processes, and home solar power beats the price of retail electricity (on average) in many markets.

Feel free to copy the above paragraph & link and use in response to claims that wind and solar are too expensive.


This is the first in a series of resource papers we intend to publish. We are attempting to pull the best information together on several topics and present it in a way that is understandable.  

We intend to update these pages as new information appears and make the main summary page the ‘go to’ place to keep up with important issues concerning renewable energy, efficiency, and electric vehicles.  And this is where you, the reader, come in.

We intend for this project to be a community-driven project. Use the comment section below the article to add corrections and new/better data. If you think the article has become out of date, then use “Reply” to post a request for an update. We’ll see it.

If you see someone on any site make a claim you think is wrong, feel free to copy over the summary and link as your reply or part of your reply to that person.

Before diving into specifics, let’s get the requisite context on subsidies out of the way: Some of the information below presents the price after subsidy, while some presents unsubsidized prices (we try to make it very clear in all cases if subsidies are included or not). Wind and solar subsidies are very simple and clear. Fossil fuels, however, get many subsidies that are now baked into the tax code or “hidden” in other ways. Furthermore, the biggest fossil fuel subsidies are the externalities that we pay through health problems and early death. These extra societal costs are huge, and in a “perfect free market” would be internalized by fossil fuel companies, but they are not.

One study conducted by the then-head of the Harvard Medical School found that the extra health and environmental costs of coal in the US comes to $500 billion/year.  Health costs alone run between $140 billion and $242 billion every year. That means that we are paying between 9 cents and 15 cents per kWh in tax and health premium dollars for every kWh of electricity we generate using coal.

Ignoring those massive externalities/subsidies for fossil fuels (which no one in their right mind should do), let’s dive into a fun look at the numbers.

Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) is often used in the electricity industry when discussing price. It is generally the estimated price of electricity coming from power plants when taking into account capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, performance, and fuel costs. A recent study from Lazard shows that wind power and solar power are already cost-competitive with all other sources of electricity when it comes to LCOE:


Another way to examine prices is by looking at prices agreed upon in power purchase agreements (PPAs).

Power purchase agreements (PPAs) are contracts between sellers (wind farms, solar farms, etc.) and buyers (utility companies, large businesses, etc.) in which the seller agrees to provide a fixed amount of electricity per year and the buyer guarantees to pay an agreed upon price. PPAs typically run for 20 to 25 years.

Wind power, on average, sold for 2.5¢ per kilowatt-hour in the US in 2013, when looking at PPA prices (2014 numbers are due to come out this week). That’s the average for all reported PPAs, which means they’re a bit under 4¢ per kilowatt-hour without subsidies. These super-low prices are extremely hard to beat, and demonstrate why so much of the electricity generation capacity added in the past few years has come from wind power plants.

wind power prices

Solar PV power prices vary a lot, based on region, size of the project, type of technology, and other factors, but we’re already seeing solar PV projects win PPAs where the promised electricity is cheaper than electricity from new natural gas, coal, or nuclear power plants.

Solar prices are still dropping very rapidly. Below, we’re going to look at “best current prices,” as they should be representative of what is possible and even likely in the near future. One can find more expensive examples, but the market will not support the more expensive, it will continue to seek out the least expensive.

In Austin, a SunEdison power plant won a PPA to sell Austin Energy electricity for less than 5¢/kWh. Federal subsidy would come to ~ 2¢/kWh, which is much lower than then the estimated 9–27¢/kWh in health costs that coal brings us, and I would presume less than the health and environmental costs of natural gas (but I haven’t seen a thorough analysis on that) — and that’s not even taking into account their own subsidies. (Note that Austin Energy has now designated solar power as its default energy generation method through 2024.)

In New Mexico, in 2013, a First Solar* power plant won a PPA with a price of 5.8¢/kWh, while new coal was going for 10–14¢/kWh. That 5.8¢/kWh price doesn’t take into account ~4.7¢/kWh of subsidies, but, again, the coal price doesn’t take into account 9–27¢/kWh in health costs.

In Dubai (in the UAE), ACWA Power bid just 5.98¢/kWh to provide electricity from a solar power to the Dubai Electricity & Water Authority (DEWA) — without subsidy. That was a world record low bid, but even if ACWA Power didn’t exist, the record would have been broken by the second-lowest bid, which was 6.13¢/kWh and came from Fotowatio Renewables & Saudi Abdul Latif Jameel Energy. Both bids came well below the average price of electricity from natural gas in the region, 9¢/kWh.

Lastly, while we didn’t get to see any numbers on a Minnesota case, a judge ruled that a solar power plant there offered a better deal for ratepayers than several competing natural gas power plants.

levelized wind ppa prices


Price predictability or risk is another important issue to consider. Solar power plants and wind power plants don’t have fuel costs, of course, and have very little maintenance and operation costs. Their big costs are right up front, which makes predicting prices for a PPA very easy. Coal power and natural gas power prices, on the other hand, can vary a great deal depending on the cost of the fuel. In the gas of natural gas, price volatility is particularly strong. This makes the projects (and basing electricity generation decisions on them) quite risky, financially.

While not often discussed, this is one more thing that makes solar or wind power a smarter financial decision. Utilities value the ability to predict future prices. Doing so makes it easier for them to set rates. Some are signing solar and wind PPAs in order to lock in stable prices over time.

Retail power prices ≠ wholesale power prices. The above discussion is all about wholesale power. Utility-scale solar power plants produce electricity at a lower cost than rooftop solar power systems (thanks to economies of scale), but the difference is generally not as wide as the difference between retail and wholesale electricity prices. That means that rooftop solar power is cheaper than retail electricity from your “friendly neighborhood utility” (sarcasm) in even more places than utility-scale solar power beats other options on the wholesale electricity market. On average, rooftop solar power has hit “socket parity” or “grid parity” in Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Australia, Hawaii, California, Arizona, and several other countries and US states.

Even though a utility can typically generate or purchase solar electricity for less than end-users can generate it, the utility has distribution costs that turn their wholesale costs into retail costs. Furthermore, it is looking to earn a good profit on its customers. Again, these are some of the reasons rooftop solar power is cheaper than retail electricity for tens or even hundreds of millions of people.

Deutsche Bank actually predicts that all 50 US states will be at grid parity by 2016 — that’s next year. (Note that it takes several years to build coal, natural gas, or nuclear power plants.) Deutsche Bank also predicts that ~80% of the global electricity market will be at grid parity by 2017. This is why solar power is scaring coal companies, natural gas companies, and utilities so much, and why you see so many anti-solar myths out there being repeated over and over again… despite being several years out of date.

solar socket parity california germany australia netherlands italy DB-countries-grid-parity-590x411

If you have a price of solar in your head from 5–10 years ago, it is probably several times higher than reality. But now that you’ve read through this article, you should have a much better sense for the current cost of solar power (and wind power as well). Be sure to help educate others by sharing with friends!

*Full Disclosure: I’m long FSLR.


Tags: , ,

About the Author


  • Russell

    Have the 2014 wind power ppa’s come out?

    • Bob_Wallace

      I don’t think so. The 2013 numbers weren’t released until August 2014.

  • juxx0r

    I’d like to point out that with the current subsidies in place the cost of rooftop solar in Australia for your own home is 8.2c/kWh at 5% cost of capital, 7.5c FiT, 60% own use, 25c/kWh grid power, 0% escalation, giving an IRR of 19% and an NPV 151% of the CapEx. Of course the funniest number in that lot is 0% escalation when we’ve averaged 7% higher electricity prices per year over the last five years.

    Unsubsidised, those same numbers give 10.9c/kWh.

    I know you guys didn’t make the graphs, but they’re a little out of date showing 14 and 18c/kWh.

  • Kathy Nelson

    Totally stupid article. If the taxpayers are subsidizing something as intermittent and unreliable as industrial wind and industrial solar then that investment will always be a loser. The intermittents (wind, solar) destabilize the grid and require an excessive about of transmission lines. Wind and solar destroy the natural resources we need to adapt to climate change, like agricultural land, forests and mountain watersheds.

    Big oil is not receiving subsidies and the attempt here to insinuate that they are is disingenuous. They get tax breaks like just about every big company you can name. Big wind gets so much in corporate welfare that they can give their pittance of junk electricity away, and because of crap legislation that keeps the scam alive, big wind/solar undercuts the market and makes things difficult for those utilities that actually keep the lights on.

    So many downsides to junk renewables. This article is nothing but more scam industry gibbering.

    • Martin

      Your comment is based on what facts?
      Could you cite them please?

    • Bob_Wallace

      FUD peddler.

    • eveee

      No subsidies for oil? What a whopper. Ever hear of master limited partnerships? No references, citations, or math? Just your opinion. You must work for the oil industry.

      Makes it difficult for the utilities? Depends on if they use renewables to lower costs or are stuck with dirty old expensive coal plants.

    • ROBwithaB

      Less than a year later, and your comment is already starting to look quite silly.
      Wind? Capacity factors for wind keep increasing, while costs keep falling.

      Solar? The subsidies will disappear, and solar power will only become cheaper and cheaper. Ordinary people will be able to generate their own power, rather than relying on large corporations and monopoly utilities.
      What’s not to like? (Unless you’re a Chevron or a Mugabe.)

  • Will E

    I really like to have a standard, a formula, to account for a Solar Kwh price.
    Including install cost, PV installed, Kwh produced per year number of production years, Solar Radiation Level on site, is different everywhere.
    maybe square meters installed is a better indication than Kw
    or Kwh installed.
    one Mgw Solar installed, what does it mean?
    when SRL 1 is 1000 square meter one Megawatt?
    when SRL 2 is 500 square meter one Megawatt?
    its a big difference.
    Solar Radiation Level, what does it mean?
    what effect on production level.

    I have 4000 Kwh/y installed. 25 m2, cost 5000 dollars.
    SRL 1, 25 years production is 100000 Kwh
    makes the price of a Kwh 5 cent.
    grid cost 25 cent pay back time 5 year.
    I payd cash 5000 dollar for the installation
    ROI is 25000 dollar.
    In three year the PV produced 12000 Kwh, is 3000 dollar.
    22 year to go.

    this is how I account for the price of Solar.
    Bob or Zachary, no matter if I m right or wrong, but can you aske
    some experts to make a standard for this?
    a formula?

  • mike_dyke

    One point which often gets missed off is the fact that when building a large PV setup, it can start producing power (and hence earning money) with only a little bit of the plant built.

    Also, if someone brings out a better solar panel then it can gradually be installed without having to shut down the complete plant.

  • TCFlood

    This article and the planned series are an outsanding idea and will be extremely useful. Thanks for doing this.

  • Martin

    Question, what happens to oil prices when the demand for some of the oil products gets reduced to the point what it can not be covered by changes in the refining process?
    For example a barrel of crude gets refined into x + y + z + numerous products, so what happens if demand for y is reduced by 50 %, can the refining process be changed to accommodate that?

    • Alharbi

      Interesting question..
      Any answer?

    • ADW

      Yes it can.

      The process has been built out over the past 100 years to supply the materials that the market demands. It has been and can all be changed as needed. Originally the primary product made by Standard Oil and Pure Oil was kerosene, that is now a minor player in the refinery industry. (They used to dump gasoline into rivers and lakes to get rid of it as it was deemed too dangerous for use!)

      Right now there is the issue where the major refineries of the gulf coast are built to deal with heavy soar crude from the gulf and Latin America, not for the light sweet found in ND region. The industry wants to export the light sweet crude vs spending the money to rebuild the existing system. But President Nixon (or was it Carter?) placed a ban on exports during the 1st oil embargo and its never been lifted. So – Politics.

      • Martin

        Thank you, I need to find more info on the refining process.

        • ADW

          A great book for an overview of the world of oil is:

          “Oil 101” by Morgan Downey. It really gives an excellent overview of the industry and markets.

    • Jason hm

      Between hydrocarbon cracking and a Fischer–Tropsch process you can reform hydrocarbons to almost any desired end product..I dont think any refineries have a Fischer–Tropsch in place to build up longer hydrocarbons, but they could.

Back to Top ↑