4 ms·
>"The authors of the study say they analyzed the costs of construction, fuel and anticipated operations for 68 gigawatts of gas plants proposed across the U.S.
by Merrill 7y ago
>"The authors of the study say they analyzed the costs of construction, fuel and anticipated operations for 68 gigawatts of gas plants proposed across the U.S. They compared those costs to building a combination of solar farms, wind plants and battery systems that, together with conservation efforts, could supply the same amount of electricity and keep the grid stable."
If the same amount of electricity is being supplied, why are conservation efforts needed? Has anyone downloaded the reports from Rocky Mountain Institute? They want your email address.
- makomk 7y agoI had a look at the report and it looks fishy. They're not actually comparing the cost of gas plants with the cost of wind, solar and storage - they're comparing with a hypothetical "clean energy portfolio" consisting of whatever combination of energy efficiency improvements, demand shifting, wind, solar and storage their model reckons is cheapest, effectively modelling energy conservation as a source of electricity that replaces gas power plant outputs. This makes very little sense; there's nothing inherent about efficiency improvements or demand flexibility that restricts them to being used with renewables rather than gas power. That's not the only dodgy thing either. Their proposal generates substantial excess energy throughout most of the year. In order to improve its cost effectiveness, they assume that excess energy has a value of $15/KWh and subtract that income from the cost of the renewable program. The actual value of this energy is probably close to zero; remember, we're talking about energy that has gone unused even after substantial use of demand shifting and storage.