3 ms·
What is your comment in reference to? You are replying to a link that has unsubsidized, all-in costs, not marginal costs. And it also has costs for storage, in
by epistasis 4y ago
What is your comment in reference to? You are replying to a link that has unsubsidized, all-in costs, not marginal costs. And it also has costs for storage, in battery form. (And costs for hydrogen, which might some day be a form of storage, but much more likely will just be used for chemical processes and maybe heat)
- rayiner 4y agoFrom the link: > When U.S. government subsidies are included, the cost of onshore wind and utility-scale solar continues to be competitive with the marginal cost of coal, nuclear and combined cycle gas generation
- epistasis 4y agoThat's saying that capital + operating costs of onshore wind and solar are competitive with the operating costs of fuel-driven electricity. Which is a statement that it is financially better to build as much wind/solar as one can to replace fuel usage. IE as long as the output doesn't get curtailed, the economically rational decision is to build solar and wind now. Of course there are some serious caveats as to why utilities do not do this: 1) they are not economically rational, in most markets they do not have greater profits with lower costs, and 2) this report is from 2021 and the cost of capital has risen somewhat due to higher interest rates. Nonetheless, wind, solar, and batteries dominate what is planned to be added to the grid in 2023: https://www.power-eng.com/solar/eia-solar-to-make-up-more-than-half-of-new-u-s-capacity-additions-in-2023/ https://www.power-eng.com/solar/eia-solar-to-make-up-more-th...