3 ms·
Cheaper? Hell no. Fossil fuels and nuclear carry their own weight, unlike, say, wind. Here in Finland, there would be no new, not any installations of wind wit
by YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 10y ago
Cheaper? Hell no.
Fossil fuels and nuclear carry their own weight, unlike, say, wind. Here in Finland, there would be no new, not any installations of wind without massive subsidies (we're talking about a guaranteed price more than 2 times the market prices) – just to disrupt the working grid as it is. (Solar isn't really even worth talking about here...)
Coal is dirty, and dirt cheap, but wind is simply too inefficient.
- wbillingsley 10y agoIn the steady-state, renewables will be cheaper. For fuel-based plants, you have the cost of the plant, the mine, the transport between the mine and the plant, as well as the clean-up. That's quite a lot of operating cost on top of the capital cost. For a network of solar-panels and domestic batteries, it is almost all capital cost. There is no fuel transport, no mine, etc. And whereas one massive plant with one massive mine is a decade-long planning and construction process, the domestic panels and storage are each very short installations that can happen largely in parallel. The domestic solar+storage grid should win, because it is a heck of a lot faster to marshall consumers into buying a consumer good, than to plan and build out nation-wide infrastructure projects.