4 ms·
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/log_scale_2x.png https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/log_scale_2x.png One should add wind and solar, both at around 0.5MJ/h per m2.
by antt 8y ago
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/log_scale_2x.png https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/log_scale_2x.png
One should add wind and solar, both at around 0.5MJ/h per m2.
- BluSyn 8y agoEnergy density and cost have almost no correlation. Gasoline is less dense, but I can package a gas generator into a small box for very little cost. Uranium requires a giant reactor the size of a small town and costs billions. $/MWh is the only real metric that matters. Edit: http://solarcellcentral.com/images/avg_cost_of_energy.jpg http://solarcellcentral.com/images/avg_cost_of_energy.jpg
- macspoofing 8y ago>$/MWh is the only real metric that matters. Given this statement and the chart that shows solar and wind already being the cheapest energy sources this must mean we can just switch to solar and wind ... right? Except we know we can't. We know that the variablity of solar and wind makes those impossible replacements for coal and gas. I guess price isn't the only metric that matters.
- BluSyn 8y agoTouche. I agree, "only metric" is hyperbolic, but it is the main metric that determines future investments. This is why the most important number is $/MWh for "solar/wind + storage". Storage has to be included in the equation. At current prices that puts "solar/wind + storage" about equal with natural gas, but those prices are dropping rapidly. Installation times are also very significant factors in reaching emission reduction targets. Waiting 10+ years for nuclear to come online just isn't viable. Solar+storage can be operational at the same scale as a nuclear plant within 2-3 years.