3 ms·
The pricing analysis assumes that costs for renewables scale linearly as they approach 100% of grid capacity, but they do not. Other comments in this thread spe
by i_am_proteus 6y ago
The pricing analysis assumes that costs for renewables scale linearly as they approach 100% of grid capacity, but they do not. Other comments in this thread speak to this phenomenon well. Without viable energy storage, operating in parallel with something like load-following nuclear is necessary for wind and solar to remain as cheap as currently quoted. If viable scale energy storage is invented, it will not be free.
- bryanlarsen 6y agoBatteries for energy storage is already viable. Batteries are already cheaper than high voltage power lines. https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2020/12/27/the-future-of-electricity-is-local/ https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2020/12/27/the-future-of-...
- i_am_proteus 6y agoIn some markets. The author of this short essay makes many assumptions that trends will remain linear.
- bryanlarsen 6y agoIt doesn't matter. Both HVDC and batteries are cheaper than nuclear, by a lot. The cost of solar, *including storage* is $40/MWh in Arizona *today*. Running that $40/MWh power to NY over HVDC is cheaper than a nuclear power plant. And according to the author, generating and storing the power in New York via solar or wind would be even cheaper.
- i_am_proteus 6y agoThis essay's math literally relies on linear continuation of current price trends for over a decade with no justification of the linear assumption in order to reach this conclusion.