3 ms·

From their wikipedia link: > The goal of such assessments is to cover the full life of the source, from material and fuel mining through construction to operat

by Mavvie 4y ago

From their wikipedia link: > The goal of such assessments is to cover the full life of the source, from material and fuel mining through construction to operation and waste management. So the studies should already be including everything you mentioned.

rglover 4y ago
That still doesn't account for the scale of deployment necessary to make up for the missing power requirements (the entire point I'm making) which, if I had to guess, would make this "10x" number irrelevant, if not laughable. For example, a quick check [1]: > Peak power production for the coal power plant was in July 2020 (719GWh) which was also the month for the lowest output for wind (34.6GWh). In July, the wind turbines produced just 4.8% of the power produced by the coal power plant while operating at only 9.4% of rated capacity. In the month of July, it would require at least 3,764 similar sized wind turbines to replace the electricity generated by the coal power plant which was operating at just 47% of rated capacity. [1] https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2021/08/19/clash_of_the_titans_wind_power_vs_coal_power_790720.html https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2021/08/19/clash_of... I don't doubt that studies dealing in hypotheticals show that it's possible, but the reality doesn't match up. Solar is in the same boat.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Those figures are intentionally presented in as misleading as possible a way. Cost of net power with sufficient availability is the relevant metric, as that's how things are compared cost wise. So if we take the figures from the article, you're comparing a 128MW net wind farm (which is around $30/MWh) to a 1681MW coal plant (which is around $60/MWh for existing plants) and then doing a shocked pikachu face when that specific wind farm spends some time producing 36MW. Put another wind farm in an uncorrelated or anticorrelated area, and you are paying the same per MW on the worst month, but you have 100% surplus to export or incentivise storage development in the average month.

by Mavvie 4y ago

rglover 4y ago

That still doesn't account for the scale of deployment necessary to make up for the missing power requirements (the entire point I'm making) which, if I had to guess, would make this "10x" number irrelevant, if not laughable. For example, a quick check [1]: > Peak power production for the coal power plant was in July 2020 (719GWh) which was also the month for the lowest output for wind (34.6GWh). In July, the wind turbines produced just 4.8% of the power produced by the coal power plant while operating at only 9.4% of rated capacity. In the month of July, it would require at least 3,764 similar sized wind turbines to replace the electricity generated by the coal power plant which was operating at just 47% of rated capacity. [1] https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2021/08/19/clash_of_the_titans_wind_power_vs_coal_power_790720.html https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2021/08/19/clash_of... I don't doubt that studies dealing in hypotheticals show that it's possible, but the reality doesn't match up. Solar is in the same boat.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
Those figures are intentionally presented in as misleading as possible a way. Cost of net power with sufficient availability is the relevant metric, as that's how things are compared cost wise. So if we take the figures from the article, you're comparing a 128MW net wind farm (which is around $30/MWh) to a 1681MW coal plant (which is around $60/MWh for existing plants) and then doing a shocked pikachu face when that specific wind farm spends some time producing 36MW. Put another wind farm in an uncorrelated or anticorrelated area, and you are paying the same per MW on the worst month, but you have 100% surplus to export or incentivise storage development in the average month.