4 ms·
I'm guessing much of that delivery cost is due to the additional energy transmission and storage infrastructure needed to incorporate intermittent energy from s
by ETH_start 4y ago
I'm guessing much of that delivery cost is due to the additional energy transmission and storage infrastructure needed to incorporate intermittent energy from solar/wind.
Solar and wind are extremely expensive when all costs are taken into account. One study found that the "true cost of using wind and solar to meet demand was $272 and $472 per MWh": [pdf]https://web.archive.org/web/20220916003958/https://files.americanexperiment.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/The-High-Cost-of-100-Percent-Carbon-Free-Electricity-by-2040-in-Minnesota.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20220916003958/https://files.ame...
Mind you, this could change if we get an economical way to generate hydrocarbon fuels from renewable electricity, so I'm certainly not pessimistic about solar/wind's long term prospects.
- Symbiote 4y agoWith articles like "Save North Dakota Oil and Gas!" I'm sceptical of that study. Wind and solar were 30% of Great Britain's electricity last year. The National Grid is a private company, so their costs are clear, 3% of the average bill.
- ETH_start 4y agoThe study advocates nuclear and hydroelectric as the means of getting to zero-carbon, so doesn't seem motivated by pro oil/gas bias.