4 ms·

The cost of generating electricity is not really a useful way to think about it if it doesn't look at the cost of generating reliable electricity. Solar and wi

The cost of generating electricity is not really a useful way to think about it if it doesn't look at the cost of generating reliable electricity. Solar and wind are unreliables and can't actually be used consistently which means that you need to not just factor in the cost of the backup energy but also to take into account that solar and wind are parasitic forms of energy and thus drives up the cost of other forms because they are politically preferred through among other things wind tax credits. So I don't believe that you are actually describing anything close to the true cost until you start doing something like the above.

epistasis 6y ago
In order to proceed to your pre-determined talking point, reliability, you ignored my entire comment and its contens. This is because you are following a playbook from inside an echo chamber that hasn't looked to the reality of new tech that's developing. I said, the cost to generate electricity when asked to, i.e. whatever is needed to make the grid function. I talked about capacity markets, the guarantees against "parasitism." Therefore, the cost is actually reflected in the functioning of the grid. The idea of "parasitic" energy sources is preposterous. If they can't be relied upon, then during those unreliable moments the fuel-based generators can make all their profits. If it were actually somehow cheaper to keep these fossil-based plants in force, point out the market failure to us. We have two entirely different market structures, energy-only in ERCOT, and energy+capacity in PJM, and they are both coalescing away from fossil fuels and towards renewables and storage. Your arguments are years out of date. Everybody knows that fossil fuels have limited lifespan on the grid, the only question is how much they can manipulate market regulations to keep them going for a few more years. Exxon is already paying heavily for their foolishness in overinvesting in assets that were clearly stranded at the time of purchase. How many more years of taking out loans to pay dividends can these companies endure?
- ThomPete 6y ago
  Now that we speak about echo chambers. No the cost is not reflected in the functioning of the grid, quite the contrary. Wind and solar makes the system more complex AND because it's politically preferred and incentivized through ex. wind tax credits it ends up making the other forms more expensive because they have to give room for wind and solar WHEN they have capacity which obviously makes fossil fuel more expensive. Wind and solar is the affirmative action of the energy system and they deliver a small fraction of the actual energy needed to run a modern society. But hey, keep drinking the kool-aid.

epistasis 6y ago

In order to proceed to your pre-determined talking point, reliability, you ignored my entire comment and its contens. This is because you are following a playbook from inside an echo chamber that hasn't looked to the reality of new tech that's developing. I said, the cost to generate electricity when asked to, i.e. whatever is needed to make the grid function. I talked about capacity markets, the guarantees against "parasitism." Therefore, the cost is actually reflected in the functioning of the grid. The idea of "parasitic" energy sources is preposterous. If they can't be relied upon, then during those unreliable moments the fuel-based generators can make all their profits. If it were actually somehow cheaper to keep these fossil-based plants in force, point out the market failure to us. We have two entirely different market structures, energy-only in ERCOT, and energy+capacity in PJM, and they are both coalescing away from fossil fuels and towards renewables and storage. Your arguments are years out of date. Everybody knows that fossil fuels have limited lifespan on the grid, the only question is how much they can manipulate market regulations to keep them going for a few more years. Exxon is already paying heavily for their foolishness in overinvesting in assets that were clearly stranded at the time of purchase. How many more years of taking out loans to pay dividends can these companies endure?

ThomPete 6y ago
Now that we speak about echo chambers. No the cost is not reflected in the functioning of the grid, quite the contrary. Wind and solar makes the system more complex AND because it's politically preferred and incentivized through ex. wind tax credits it ends up making the other forms more expensive because they have to give room for wind and solar WHEN they have capacity which obviously makes fossil fuel more expensive. Wind and solar is the affirmative action of the energy system and they deliver a small fraction of the actual energy needed to run a modern society. But hey, keep drinking the kool-aid.