3 ms·

Comparing intermittent sources with non-intermittent sources is comparing apples to oranges. A realistic comparison would also include the cost of energy storag

Comparing intermittent sources with non-intermittent sources is comparing apples to oranges. A realistic comparison would also include the cost of energy storage, as well as transmission line construction to support energy transport [1]. Intermittent sources are shockingly cheap if you naively compare on a watt-hour basis, ignoring the cost of storing and releasing energy. Unfortunately, storage at the scale required remains expensive and unfeasible [2] and are actually rising due to lithium prices rising 10x over the last few years [3]. 1. Wind and solar need to be built in specific places, and thus have to move large amounts of energy over long distances. This frequently requires expansions to the energy grid: https://www.vox.com/videos/22685707/climate-change-clean-energy-high-voltage-transmission-lines https://www.vox.com/videos/22685707/climate-change-clean-ene... 2. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/new-york-battery-storage-costs-rise-interconnection-queue-12-gw/621954/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/new-york-battery-storage-co... 3. https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lithium https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lithium

cesarb 4y ago
> Wind and solar need to be built in specific places, and thus have to move large amounts of energy over long distances. That's not exclusive to wind and solar. From the ones I've seen in my country: 1. Hydroelectric power needs particular geographic features, and an abundance of water. Of the 4 long-distance HVDC links in my country, 4 of them are there to move large amounts of energy from large hydroelectric power plants to the region where most of the power demand is. 2. Coal is cheaper when it doesn't need to be transported for long distances. Not coincidentally, most of the few coal power plants in my country seem to have been built close to (or directly next to) coal mines; the exception I've seen was built next to the coast, and receives coal by ship. 3. Gas power plants tend to be built either next to already existent gas pipelines, or next to the coast to receive LNG by ship.

cesarb 4y ago

> Wind and solar need to be built in specific places, and thus have to move large amounts of energy over long distances. That's not exclusive to wind and solar. From the ones I've seen in my country: 1. Hydroelectric power needs particular geographic features, and an abundance of water. Of the 4 long-distance HVDC links in my country, 4 of them are there to move large amounts of energy from large hydroelectric power plants to the region where most of the power demand is. 2. Coal is cheaper when it doesn't need to be transported for long distances. Not coincidentally, most of the few coal power plants in my country seem to have been built close to (or directly next to) coal mines; the exception I've seen was built next to the coast, and receives coal by ship. 3. Gas power plants tend to be built either next to already existent gas pipelines, or next to the coast to receive LNG by ship.