3 ms·

This is... really off base for 2020. Solar and wind in the US are incredibly cheap sources of energy. Literally the cheapest options: https://www.lazard.com/me

This is... really off base for 2020. Solar and wind in the US are incredibly cheap sources of energy. Literally the cheapest options: https://www.lazard.com/media/451445/grphx_lcoe-02-02.jpg https://www.lazard.com/media/451445/grphx_lcoe-02-02.jpg Residential solar is expensive because you don't have the same economy of scale you see in utility-scale deployments. Also something like 1/3 of the cost is "soft costs" such as marketing and the crazy red tape associated with permitting. The latest academic modelling shows that we can meet 70-80% of energy demand from renewable energy alone, even without storage. All it requires is building a modest excess of capacity and a 50/50 wind/solar mix. When it comes time to add storage, battery storage costs have been plummeting and already dropped 75% over the last 6 years: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/report-levelized-cost-of-energy-for-lithium-ion-batteries-bnef https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/report-levelize...

StillBored 6y ago
But if its truly cheaper than all the worlds CO2 production problems are solved!! Energy is sufficiently deregulated in enough of the US that they will sell to the areas that aren't, just like France was doing with all its "old dirty" nukes, to the countries around it building "green". I can't tell from your graph, but I saw an actual cost estimate a couple months ago that points out what has been true for the past 10 years of "wind is cheaper" metrics. Which is that its not, because its not continuous (or controllable) power delivery. Nor does it account for the fact that it also needs to be overbuilt if its going to supply an energy storage system either. Nor does it account for the energy storage costs. So, yes in absolute KW produced its cheaper, but that does little but create an oversupply problem. Which is why in places like TX the power costs frequently go to zero when the wind is blowing and spike at other times. Making cheap power when you don't need it doesn't help. What TX needs is lots of power at 3PM (when in theory solar would be useful, but the existing smaller plants aren't making money either). The net result in TX has been lots of wind install, but even more gas install. Because the gas plants are actually making money. If big battery plants are economically workable then we would also see a lot of companies arbitraging the free wind energy into $ when the price spikes but we don't see that either. So its not a simple/sure bet like is being claimed. (for those that don't know, TX is one of the largest green energy systems in the world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas)
- epistasis 6y ago
  It's not solved yet, because energy is not deregulated enough, and entrenched financial interests won't go down without a legislative fight. For example, in Ohio several state legislators were purchased, and passed regulation claiming to "save" nuclear but what it really did was bail out coal and prevent the cheapest source of energy from competing in the market. The most surprising is that this corruption is actually resulting in prosecutions, and the top regulator has now resigned too: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-20/firstenergy-says-ex-senior-executives-broke-rules-with-payment https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-20/firstener... Funny you should bring up Texas, it actually is installing massive batteries, with 17GW in the pipeline last time I heard. And natural gas is dwindling to nothing, getting replaced with solar. ERCOT is one of the very very very few places where cheapest cost can actually win, and it's where we are going to see natural gas die first because of that.
  - StillBored 6y ago
    I live in tx, and have a bit of knowledge about this. Gas plants are still being constructed, and there are more in planning. There is 0 indication its going anywhere anytime soon.
    - CogentHedgehog 6y ago
      Gas plants are replacing coal plants: https://www.power-eng.com/2019/04/11/eia-gas-fired-combined-cycle-now-generates-more-u-s-power-than-coal/ https://www.power-eng.com/2019/04/11/eia-gas-fired-combined-... They're generally cheaper to run and better at load-following. Coal has been on the way out for a decade or so, long before renewable energy started to be a big player in the US.
      - StillBored 6y ago
        Right, but its the NG that enables the wind because of said load following. That combined with the fact that they are super cheap to build, and the US has a huge glut in NG due to fracking and regulation on how much we can sell internationally. But, that isn't the point. The point is that even if we go to a ~70% wind model, we will _STILL_BE_WORSE_OFF_THAN_FRANCE_WAS_40_YEARS_AGO_. The "Green energy" movement there is _INCREASING_ their CO2 production. https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/france-co2-emissions/ https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/france-co2-emiss... I don't get why this is so hard to understand for all those down voters. Worse, at the current rates, we won't get there for decades.

StillBored 6y ago

But if its truly cheaper than all the worlds CO2 production problems are solved!! Energy is sufficiently deregulated in enough of the US that they will sell to the areas that aren't, just like France was doing with all its "old dirty" nukes, to the countries around it building "green". I can't tell from your graph, but I saw an actual cost estimate a couple months ago that points out what has been true for the past 10 years of "wind is cheaper" metrics. Which is that its not, because its not continuous (or controllable) power delivery. Nor does it account for the fact that it also needs to be overbuilt if its going to supply an energy storage system either. Nor does it account for the energy storage costs. So, yes in absolute KW produced its cheaper, but that does little but create an oversupply problem. Which is why in places like TX the power costs frequently go to zero when the wind is blowing and spike at other times. Making cheap power when you don't need it doesn't help. What TX needs is lots of power at 3PM (when in theory solar would be useful, but the existing smaller plants aren't making money either). The net result in TX has been lots of wind install, but even more gas install. Because the gas plants are actually making money. If big battery plants are economically workable then we would also see a lot of companies arbitraging the free wind energy into $ when the price spikes but we don't see that either. So its not a simple/sure bet like is being claimed. (for those that don't know, TX is one of the largest green energy systems in the world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas)

epistasis 6y ago
It's not solved yet, because energy is not deregulated enough, and entrenched financial interests won't go down without a legislative fight. For example, in Ohio several state legislators were purchased, and passed regulation claiming to "save" nuclear but what it really did was bail out coal and prevent the cheapest source of energy from competing in the market. The most surprising is that this corruption is actually resulting in prosecutions, and the top regulator has now resigned too: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-20/firstenergy-says-ex-senior-executives-broke-rules-with-payment https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-20/firstener... Funny you should bring up Texas, it actually is installing massive batteries, with 17GW in the pipeline last time I heard. And natural gas is dwindling to nothing, getting replaced with solar. ERCOT is one of the very very very few places where cheapest cost can actually win, and it's where we are going to see natural gas die first because of that.
- StillBored 6y ago
  I live in tx, and have a bit of knowledge about this. Gas plants are still being constructed, and there are more in planning. There is 0 indication its going anywhere anytime soon.
  - CogentHedgehog 6y ago
    Gas plants are replacing coal plants: https://www.power-eng.com/2019/04/11/eia-gas-fired-combined-cycle-now-generates-more-u-s-power-than-coal/ https://www.power-eng.com/2019/04/11/eia-gas-fired-combined-... They're generally cheaper to run and better at load-following. Coal has been on the way out for a decade or so, long before renewable energy started to be a big player in the US.
    - StillBored 6y ago
      Right, but its the NG that enables the wind because of said load following. That combined with the fact that they are super cheap to build, and the US has a huge glut in NG due to fracking and regulation on how much we can sell internationally. But, that isn't the point. The point is that even if we go to a ~70% wind model, we will _STILL_BE_WORSE_OFF_THAN_FRANCE_WAS_40_YEARS_AGO_. The "Green energy" movement there is _INCREASING_ their CO2 production. https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/france-co2-emissions/ https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/france-co2-emiss... I don't get why this is so hard to understand for all those down voters. Worse, at the current rates, we won't get there for decades.