3 ms·
LCOE doesn't account for storage, backup and grid costs, please don't use it as a go to indicator that renewables are cheap. How much offshore capacity was adde
by kgabis 4y ago
LCOE doesn't account for storage, backup and grid costs, please don't use it as a go to indicator that renewables are cheap. How much offshore capacity was added in the last 3 years in Germany? Zero? Or am I mistaken?
- Gwypaas 4y agoEnergy grids tend to converge to LCOE of the producers. Just look at the average prices before the current crisis haphazardly replacing Russian gas with alternatives. We are also talking about the 70-90% case here, for that case no storage is needed. That is the point. A stupid solution, which is cheaper than nuclear, is simply burning hydrogen in turbines like todays peaker plants. We are not at the point where it is needed, so everyone is instead looking for smarter solution. The European grid is interconnected. UK awarded contracts to add 7 GW @ 60% capacity factor = 4.2 GW average last summer. Germany seems to have added ~500 MW in off-shore wind in the last three years, so with that generations capacity factor about 230 MW in average power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offshore_wind_farms_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offshore_wind_farms_in...
- kgabis 4y agoIt just doesn't make sense to only use LCOE for weather and season dependent sources of energy, of course you need storage if you don't want to burn gas/coal during Dunkelflaute. Just look at German grid and what's happening right now (614 gCO₂eq/kWh, mostly gas and coal). Meanwhile France is at 92g. Are you really proposing countries like Poland decarbonise like Germany instead of following France's example? Interconnected or not, you do need cheap and dependable energy and the only clean source of that is nuclear. Hydrogen is just a greenwashed natural gas. And 500MW in 3 years is quite far from being meaningful.