- Solar now requires no more upfront capital than coal or gas to produce the same annual electricity, reversing a disadvantage that was as large as five-to-one a decade ago.
- Batteries and wider grid flexibility still add real system costs, but firm solar-plus-storage is already competitive with new fossil generation in favorable markets.
- For capital-constrained emerging economies, solar no longer means paying more today to save money tomorrow. Increasingly, it is the cheaper entry ticket as well.
For years, the economic case for solar came with an awkward qualification. Yes, it had no fuel bill. Yes, its operating costs were low. And yes, over the life of a project it could already produce cheaper electricity than a new coal or gas plant. But first, someone had to pay for it.
Solar concentrated most of its lifetime costs at the beginning. Fossil power appeared to ask for less capital upfront and spread the rest of the bill across decades of coal or gas purchases. In rich countries with deep capital markets, that distinction could be managed. In emerging economies facing high interest rates, limited public budgets and competing infrastructure needs, it could determine what was built.
That disadvantage has now largely disappeared. According to a new Ember analysis, a solar plant can now require less upfront investment than a coal or gas plant for the same amount of electricity delivered. A decade ago, solar could require up to five times as much.
This is not another claim that solar has become cheaper on a lifetime basis. That happened years ago. It is a more fundamental tipping point: solar is now competing with fossil fuels before the first tonne of coal or cubic meter of gas is purchased.
Read more: Oil Price
