3 ms·

Amazing progress over 15 years really. It must be stated that these numbers imply 'when the sun is shining'. The cost of the systems producing nighttime power

Amazing progress over 15 years really. It must be stated that these numbers imply 'when the sun is shining'. The cost of the systems producing nighttime power is not accounted for in these.

rossdavidh 6y ago
In large parts of the world (e.g. where I live, in Texas, USA) this is by far when the largest electricity usage is (because it's when the air conditioners are working hardest). So, yes we will have to have some non-solar energy, we could get to much larger than we already are (and it's growing fast) because that is when the peak usage is.
- 8note 6y ago
  When it's hottest, you run into dollar's other challenge - they get less efficient as they heat up
gwright 6y ago
This is a common oversight in much of the public discussion about renewables that is inexcusable. Public policy is being devised from a very deep misunderstanding of the physics of a power grid.
pfdietz 6y ago
The numbers take into account the lower capacity factor of solar. So yes, they do take into account that the sun is not always shining. Judged just on a peak kW basis, solar's advantage would be even larger.
- acidburnNSA 6y ago
  Well yes if we put grossly misleading numbers it would be even worse of a sin. What I mean is that it is not a system cost. This assumes the existence of dispatchable low carbon energy at large scale without acknowledging this cost. You can't meaningfully talk about $/kWh with solar in the context of deep decarbonization without talking about the cost of dispatchable duplicate backup capacity. Costs and success today are riding on the back of a huge and high carbon dispatchable grid.
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    Estimates of what it would cost to cover for variability of renewables puts the extra cost low enough that nuclear still is out of the running. This is especially the case if one considers that any nuclear plant whose construction started today would be competing against renewable and storage technologies of a decade or more in the future. For nuclear to survive, not only do its costs have to come down a lot, but the ongoing crash in costs of renewables and storage have to come to a sudden halt. Nuclear proponents are basically betting that all the many storage technologies fail to get cheaper. This is quite the bet.

Amazing progress over 15 years really. It must be stated that these numbers imply 'when the sun is shining'. The cost of the systems producing nighttime power is not accounted for in these.

rossdavidh 6y ago

In large parts of the world (e.g. where I live, in Texas, USA) this is by far when the largest electricity usage is (because it's when the air conditioners are working hardest). So, yes we will have to have some non-solar energy, we could get to much larger than we already are (and it's growing fast) because that is when the peak usage is.

8note 6y ago
When it's hottest, you run into dollar's other challenge - they get less efficient as they heat up

gwright 6y ago

This is a common oversight in much of the public discussion about renewables that is inexcusable. Public policy is being devised from a very deep misunderstanding of the physics of a power grid.

pfdietz 6y ago

The numbers take into account the lower capacity factor of solar. So yes, they do take into account that the sun is not always shining. Judged just on a peak kW basis, solar's advantage would be even larger.

acidburnNSA 6y ago
Well yes if we put grossly misleading numbers it would be even worse of a sin. What I mean is that it is not a system cost. This assumes the existence of dispatchable low carbon energy at large scale without acknowledging this cost. You can't meaningfully talk about $/kWh with solar in the context of deep decarbonization without talking about the cost of dispatchable duplicate backup capacity. Costs and success today are riding on the back of a huge and high carbon dispatchable grid.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  Estimates of what it would cost to cover for variability of renewables puts the extra cost low enough that nuclear still is out of the running. This is especially the case if one considers that any nuclear plant whose construction started today would be competing against renewable and storage technologies of a decade or more in the future. For nuclear to survive, not only do its costs have to come down a lot, but the ongoing crash in costs of renewables and storage have to come to a sudden halt. Nuclear proponents are basically betting that all the many storage technologies fail to get cheaper. This is quite the bet.