2 ms·
Your own sources, if you dig into them, conveniently split generation costs (of which Lazard's cited report says that wind and solar generation is competitive o
by Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
Your own sources, if you dig into them, conveniently split generation costs (of which Lazard's cited report says that wind and solar generation is competitive only when subsidized by the US government) with storage costs. If you factor storage costs into the equation, your economy would look way different. Lazard has a report on storage costs too.
I'm withdrawing from further discussion due to your petty manner to use insults instead of arguments.
- socialdemocrat 6y agoInsults are there because you said I made false claims and lacked sources. That is basically calling me a liar. The sources was easy to look up. Claiming storage costs must be included is moving the goalpost. Gas power plant plus wind is e.g. a perfectly valid choice which cause significant CO2 reductions, and which is entirely cost competitive. Biomass is another viable choice. Many places hydro plus wind and solar is a viable choice. For many using you EV will provide you with storage for a very low cost. With Tesla’s million mile battery, there is minimal cost to using EV battery cycles to power your house when the sun doesn’t shine. Point is, there are tons options and choices and so claiming wind and solar must be paired with storage is disingenuous.