3 ms·
Sure, but the reverse side of that is the proportional cost increase of solar that has excess capacity. Solar has negligible running costs, it's irrelevant that
by yholio 8y ago
Sure, but the reverse side of that is the proportional cost increase of solar that has excess capacity. Solar has negligible running costs, it's irrelevant that you use the energy or not, the capital costs will have to be recovered from the price of the fraction of energy that you do use.
So you are effectively asking for a 3-5x lower solar cost before it could replace existing sources. Never mind that there are seasons and periods of the day when no amount of excess capacity will cover the demand, there is simply no significant solar energy on continent-wide scales.
- PuffinBlue 8y agoEveryone keeps talking about solar. Probably for the classic 'sun doesn't shine at night' thing. I've repeatedly said to use a mix of renewables, just like a mix of fossil fuels is used, so deficiencies in one is balanced by another. The exact same thing is done in traditional generation. You don't use a nuclear plant t for a TV pickup for instance, you wouldn't use solar for the whole grid. Balancing the way you generate reduces the amount of over-capacity required (and subsequently the cost), exactly as is done now in traditional generation.