3 ms·
You cannot just look at $/MW costs when the goal is to have 100% generation adequacy (i.e. demand is uncontrolled, people can turn on loads within their home wh
by eigenvector 8y ago
You cannot just look at $/MW costs when the goal is to have 100% generation adequacy (i.e. demand is uncontrolled, people can turn on loads within their home whenever they want and always expect to have adequate supply).
If loads are interruptible and you don't mind not being able to turn on your air conditioner at 10pm on a hot summer night, then sure, off-grid rooftop solar can be cheaper. Primarily, the way people who actually live off-grid operate is the same way people without running water wash dishes: you ration your consumption.
But most people want power for all their stuff, all the time. It will always be easier to plan for generation adequacy and resiliency centrally rather than every single power user having to install enough generation and storage to meet their own needs, 100% of the time.
- cbhl 8y agoTotally agree that it's easier to plan a centralized system over a decentralized one, provided that you adequately fund people to maintain all the components. (And trim trees!) But have you ever been in a power outage, used your cell phone as a flashlight, and thought, "man, I wish my entire house ran off of a battery like my cell phone?" A home builder already plans for 95% generation adequacy of hot water -- they literally find space in the floor plan for a hot water heater, and decide how big the tank should be. If you run out, either you ration usage or you buy a bigger water tank. If home batteries had the right safety-energy density ratio (admittedly -- hard problem; see the RFS for Energy), you could just include one in the floor plan based on 80%ile usage, like the batteries in laptops, and cell phones, and electric cars. They're just too big and expensive now.