dewafelbakkers t1_iuhmvnu wrote on October 31, 2022 at 12:22 PM

Reply to comment by Unicorn_Colombo in New solar capacity 10 times cheaper than gas, says intelligence company Rystad by EnergyTransitionNews

These articles often ignore thing like LCOS and the overcapacity that would be necessary to build out for solar to replace current gas plants.

Lots of the very expensive gas plant arr as expensive as they are because they are peaker plants. Meaning they kick on and sell to the grid very quickly, on demand, and when demand is very high.

In order for solar and wind to be directly compared to these plants, you need to compare a set up that could directly replace these plants, and continue performing their same function.

This means enough storage capacity to reliably provide the mwhr needed for peak usage hours. This means building out capacity to reliably recharge that storage method even during peak use hours in the winter during a cold snap.

That's what should be compared price wise if the economics is concerned. 1mwhr of solar and wind is the same are 1mwhr from a battery is the same as 1mwhr from a lng plant, but the operating methods, the infrastructure, and the dispatchability and recharge times are very very different

Edit: and to be clear to anyone else reading this comment, I am pro solar and wind and batteries. I just think these surface level comparisons of gas versus solar costs lack the nuance to be useful and are ultimately disingenuous.

Tech_Philosophy t1_iuiit4z wrote on October 31, 2022 at 4:20 PM

> you need to compare a set up that could directly replace these plants, and continue performing their same function.

Yeah, that would be battery storage, which has always been priced in to building renewables starting like 4 years ago. In fact, currently around the world the batteries are usually finished being set up before the solar/wind farm itself. Hawaii is a great example right now.

dewafelbakkers t1_iuj1omd wrote on October 31, 2022 at 6:24 PM

The point I'm making is all these studies use very surface level analysis. For price comparison, the majority refer to and use lcoe only, and neglect to mention that Battery storage is an additional cost not included in those calculations. When those storage methods are included, the price comparison begins to balance. And when you are talking about a battery system with a large enough capacity that it is capable of reliably replacing a gas plant (by which I don't just mean matching capacity, but with a surrounding generating system able to meet normal demand and recharge the battery for when it's electricity is needed). When you consider a battery system with that much capacity, the lcos starts to increase dramatically, and given that neither can be implemented without the other is a carbon free future grid, you have to address both costs.

Having said all that, do I know if that price tag is higher? I don't. But ultimately I support renewable energy. Wind solar batteries other methods of storage nuclear etc. I think these direct price comparisons are flawed at best and disingenuous at worst and are generally bad arguments.

My argument for renewable energy and for nuclear more and other green tech is the same - i think the initial price tag for these things is higher than the fossil fuel status quo but it doesn't matter how much it costs to implement these new technologies, it much be done as quickly as possible and by any means possible and damn the price tag.