6 ms·

Converting from MW to MWh is complicated for intermittent renewables. For a gas-fired plant you usually get 95+% of the installed capacity as firm production.

Converting from MW to MWh is complicated for intermittent renewables. For a gas-fired plant you usually get 95+% of the installed capacity as firm production. For hydro, 50%-60% on average, depending on the profile of the reservoir and rainfall. For solar it can be 10% to 20%, for wind 20% to 40%. The accounting gets complicated when you include the fact that you can't dispatch or even precisely predict those sources, so you're only able to offer it because there are other sources (hydro, gas, etc.) which you can turn down on demand to accommodate and compensate for the intermittent renewable. Also, $/MW isn't comparable across sources due to the facts above, the price that really matters is the long-term $/MWh average, which the parent post provided. [Edit] Some of the terms I used might not match the appropriate technical terms in English, when I worked in energy it wasn't in an English-speaking country, so my apologies.

Retric 10y ago
PV Solar is vastly better than 10% you generally get 20-30% in good areas and nobody installs solar in Alaska. PS: Concentrating solar towers need cloudless days (and are outdated tech) and even they still beat 10%.
maxerickson 10y ago
In Chile, the company bid to sell power at $30 per megawatt hour. "deal in August pegging $29.10 per megawatt hour in Chile." So where's the tricky accounting?
- philipkglass 10y ago
  I am pretty bullish about solar technology, as you might be able to tell from my posting history, but I'm a bit suspicious of those sub-$30 record breaking bids reported on this year. It looks like the companies making the bids are either gambling on continued aggressive cost reductions before the plants are scheduled to enter service or they're basically not making money on the contracts. Some of them could end up like SunEdison if they've left no margin for error. That said, $150/MWh is certainly too high for a PV project entering service in 2018 in any reasonably sunny part of the world. American PPA prices this year, bid realistically by experienced companies, are such that they're still in the $70-$80 range after you back out the 30% Investment Tax Credit.
- ucaetano 10y ago
  The tricky accounting is in comparing $/MW, a number which isn't comparable across different energy sources. You're picking a part of the article where there isn't tricky accounting and asking me where the tricky accounting is. Well, it is in the part of the article that you didn't pick.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    The prices I am talking about from the article and the graph provided above are both in $/MW-h! So where's the tricky accounting?
    - ucaetano 10y ago
      In comparing $/MW, as it is done in the article (see the big blue/yellow chart in the article). Please keep in mind that I'm saying that the entirety of the article is tricky accounting, or that you're doing tricky accounting, just that it is hard to compare $/MW across sources, as well as to compare single contracts, especially when you have issues such as dumping, etc.

Retric 10y ago

PV Solar is vastly better than 10% you generally get 20-30% in good areas and nobody installs solar in Alaska. PS: Concentrating solar towers need cloudless days (and are outdated tech) and even they still beat 10%.

maxerickson 10y ago

In Chile, the company bid to sell power at $30 per megawatt hour. "deal in August pegging $29.10 per megawatt hour in Chile." So where's the tricky accounting?

philipkglass 10y ago
I am pretty bullish about solar technology, as you might be able to tell from my posting history, but I'm a bit suspicious of those sub-$30 record breaking bids reported on this year. It looks like the companies making the bids are either gambling on continued aggressive cost reductions before the plants are scheduled to enter service or they're basically not making money on the contracts. Some of them could end up like SunEdison if they've left no margin for error. That said, $150/MWh is certainly too high for a PV project entering service in 2018 in any reasonably sunny part of the world. American PPA prices this year, bid realistically by experienced companies, are such that they're still in the $70-$80 range after you back out the 30% Investment Tax Credit.
ucaetano 10y ago
The tricky accounting is in comparing $/MW, a number which isn't comparable across different energy sources. You're picking a part of the article where there isn't tricky accounting and asking me where the tricky accounting is. Well, it is in the part of the article that you didn't pick.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  The prices I am talking about from the article and the graph provided above are both in $/MW-h! So where's the tricky accounting?
  - ucaetano 10y ago
    In comparing $/MW, as it is done in the article (see the big blue/yellow chart in the article). Please keep in mind that I'm saying that the entirety of the article is tricky accounting, or that you're doing tricky accounting, just that it is hard to compare $/MW across sources, as well as to compare single contracts, especially when you have issues such as dumping, etc.