4 ms·
Seems like a simplistic but a very conceivable short sighted overlooked detail in touting fossil fuel advantage to quote so called primary energy for fossil fue
by jxramos 6y ago
Seems like a simplistic but a very conceivable short sighted overlooked detail in touting fossil fuel advantage to quote so called primary energy for fossil fuel, and yet it kinda feels like a straw man is hiding somewhere. Are there actual past articles and literature that conflates the two when speaking of fossil fuels? Setting the bar too high for renewables would be a big fallacy, but where has that happened exactly? It'll be cool to look back at old articles and twitter posts and spot this conflation or at least to ask for clarification.
- jxramos 6y agoHere's an example from the linked article @mcwone shared below that may present us with an opportunity to spot the fallacy in play: Meanwhile, with batteries, it costs roughly $200 to store the energy equivalent to one barrel of oil. Lazard, “Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis”; utility-scale lithium battery LCOE (levelized cost of energy) @ $108–$140/MWh converts to $180– $230/BOE (barrel of oil energy equivalent). We'll I'm struggling to track that quote in the article to its primary source assuming I landed on the right place https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-140.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-o...